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

[Li Shenron]

I don't think rules changes are needed, only descriptive text and artwork representations, so it can already be done in THIS edition, upcoming reprints. I am starting to become suspicious of these calls to fix stuff in 6e, it sounds either an attempt at delaying confronting the issues, or wanting a new edition for other reasons.

Alignment is already mostly removed from 5e, but apparent the caveat in the MM introduction about it is always ignored. Maybe next print run of the MM could add "usually" to each monster's alignment, or replace it with "any" for the problematic ones.

Rewriting the main description page for orcs and drow takes more work but it's still a change of fluff. They can start by editing just a minimal amount of sentences using errata, but even replacing the whole page does not require a new book.

I don't really think ability scores bonus are the problem, but these can also be simply replaced with errata by non-specific ability increases like for humans, for example "increase any ability by 2, increase another by 1".

On the other hand, the game needs even more diverse artwork than it currently has, specifically it needs more non-white/westerners good races ie. elves, dwarves and halflings. I don't think necessarily changing artwork in the PHB which might be harder than changing text, but increasing representation in upcoming books and adventures.

 

[GreenTengu]

These all sound good. Two more things I would add...

Divorce ability scores from attack bonus, damage bonus and class mechanics. You will get a wider variety of characters if people raise their Dexterity or Strength because they imagine their characters to be agile or powerful and want to succeed on those checks more often than because raising those scores will give them a +1 80-90% of the rolls they make during the course of the adventure.

It should be possible to play a Dective-style Rogue whose highest ability is Intelligence or Wisdom or play a Monk who is slow and clumsy but powerful and deliberate without absolutely failing the majority of the rolls the character is ever expected to make during the course of their lifetime as a result and probably dying in the first couple battles.

Also-- get rid of weapons tables. In 5E we have been stuck with a state of affairs where something like one out of every 3 characters uses either a rapier or a great axe and virtually no other weapon in the game gets used because they are all mathematically demonstrably inferior options. Instead, just make melee damage and ranged damage die based on the class instead, regardless of whether the character narratively is using a two handed weapon, a sword and shield, two weapons-- what have you. I don't really see much of an issue in saying that a specialized fighter with a club can do as many "hit points" of damage over 1 rounds of actions as a specialized fighter with a great sword. It would just mean the person with the club is striking more times during those 10 seconds. Meanwhile, if a untrained Wizard has a Great Axe, they are likely going to be far more clumsy with it and just aren't going to be doing the same damage across those 10 seconds as a trained fighter.

The same could maybe be done for AC. One of the weird hang-ups about D&D forever has always been "why does one need to be 'trained' in armor to use it? Its clothing-- surely we can throw a chainmail shirt or breastplate on anyone and it will protect them" and various ways have had to be imagined up to explain this discrepancy and it has never felt satisfying. So if characters just have a set AC and set damage die so long as they are "suitably outfitted" which can be left up to the individual player's imagination, the whole system balances out better.

 

[Minigiant]

Possibly remove alignment in its entirety

I think a possible 6e should make alignment totally optional. Much like feats.

And 9 point alignment should not be the only form displayed in the core 3 books as options. They could offer 3 point alignment. Or outsider faction alignment (Celestial, Abyssal, Eladrin, Infernal, Titanic, etc). On just faction loyalty.

 

[jasper]

Leave Alignment alone. Currently it is nearly gone.

The base rules are for the Forgotten Realms. Include sidebar noting this.

Then the Racial Abilities alone. If a person is upset he can’t play a race due to the racial abilities, include a sidebar about reskinning. I have a human who looks like a dwarf until you get within 10 feet. But does not have dwarf abilities.

Include a sidebar about evil races saying this the default (Forgotten Realms) view. Some of the verbiage can be change.

Include a data dictionary (we do this in programming) which exactly defines how the word race, humanoid, shaman, and other “Problem” words are being used in game.

IF you asking for changes for 6E. Elf lose the trance ability replacing with advantage on sleep spells. No monster races can be player races. Exception you paid $10,000 to a currently unnamed charity to play any race from Volo’s as long as 6E lasts. Or you pay $100 to same charity per PC for an exception certificate.

 

[dave2008]

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

They would have to rage about it on various forums first though.

 

[dave2008]

But isn't someone supposed to be able to play the the game with just the PHB? At least at low levels.

You could provide some defaults in the free basic rules.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't think rules changes are needed, only descriptive text and artwork representations, so it can already be done in THIS edition, upcoming reprints. I am starting to become suspicious of these calls to fix stuff in 6e, it sounds either an attempt at delaying confronting the issues, or wanting a new edition for other reasons.

Oh, I definitely think some changes should come in this edition, and I am not trying to delay them at all. This thread is just to discuss what a 6e could look like, not really attached to any changes they might do in 5e.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Divorce ability scores from attack bonus, damage bonus and class mechanics. You will get a wider variety of characters if people raise their Dexterity or Strength because they imagine their characters to be agile or powerful and want to succeed on those checks more often than because raising those scores will give them a +1 80-90% of the rolls they make during the course of the adventure.

It should be possible to play a Dective-style Rogue whose highest ability is Intelligence or Wisdom or play a Monk who is slow and clumsy but powerful and deliberate without absolutely failing the majority of the rolls the character is ever expected to make during the course of their lifetime as a result and probably dying in the first couple battles.

I don't really see how this improves inclusivity in any way, really. This just seems like it would get rid of the meaning of the ability scores, and not seem realistic.

Also-- get rid of weapons tables. In 5E we have been stuck with a state of affairs where something like one out of every 3 characters uses either a rapier or a great axe and virtually no other weapon in the game gets used because they are all mathematically demonstrably inferior options. Instead, just make melee damage and ranged damage die based on the class instead, regardless of whether the character narratively is using a two handed weapon, a sword and shield, two weapons-- what have you. I don't really see much of an issue in saying that a specialized fighter with a club can do as many "hit points" of damage over 1 rounds of actions as a specialized fighter with a great sword. It would just mean the person with the club is striking more times during those 10 seconds. Meanwhile, if a untrained Wizard has a Great Axe, they are likely going to be far more clumsy with it and just aren't going to be doing the same damage across those 10 seconds as a trained fighter.

The same could maybe be done for AC. One of the weird hang-ups about D&D forever has always been "why does one need to be 'trained' in armor to use it? Its clothing-- surely we can throw a chainmail shirt or breastplate on anyone and it will protect them" and various ways have had to be imagined up to explain this discrepancy and it has never felt satisfying. So if characters just have a set AC and set damage die so long as they are "suitably outfitted" which can be left up to the individual player's imagination, the whole system balances out better.

I have the same problems with this as the one above. I don't see how it promotes inclusivity and don't really find it realistic.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Leave Alignment alone. Currently it is nearly gone.

But it is still in the base rules. I think making it an optional rule like flanking or multiclassing would be a good idea.

The base rules are for the Forgotten Realms. Include sidebar noting this.

Why does the next edition need a base setting in the PHB? Sure, it will help new players, but they could always just put it in the DMG.

Also, why does it need to be the Forgotten Realms? It seems like an increasing number of people don't like the Forgotten Realms, and I wouldn't be overly surprised if they changed the base setting to Exandria or Eberron.

Then the Racial Abilities alone. If a person is upset he can’t play a race due to the racial abilities, include a sidebar about reskinning. I have a human who looks like a dwarf until you get within 10 feet. But does not have dwarf abilities.

They're already changing this in 5e, so they're probably (if not definitely) going to make the same change in a 6e.

Include a sidebar about evil races saying this the default (Forgotten Realms) view. Some of the verbiage can be change.

So, you think that Orcs and Drow should still be evil in the Forgotten Realms, and that they should keep Forgotten Realms as the base setting, and still base all the rules off of the setting? How are any of these changes? I just seems like it's a small clarification that largely ignores the issues.

Include a data dictionary (we do this in programming) which exactly defines how the word race, humanoid, shaman, and other “Problem” words are being used in game.

I think this could work. At the end of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount they have a Glossary of sorts. If they had this in the MM, PHB, or DMG that could help with things.

IF you asking for changes for 6E. Elf lose the trance ability replacing with advantage on sleep spells. No monster races can be player races. Exception you paid $10,000 to a currently unnamed charity to play any race from Volo’s as long as 6E lasts. Or you pay $100 to same charity per PC for an exception certificate.

I fail to see the relevance. Please clarify, and I mean no disrespect. I am a bit dense.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Alignment is already mostly removed from 5e, but apparent the caveat in the MM introduction about it is always ignored. Maybe next print run of the MM could add "usually" to each monster's alignment, or replace it with "any" for the problematic ones.

I agree that this could be helpful for this edition, but this discussion is mainly for 6e. If they keep Alignment in the Monster Manual, I personally hope that they don't do "usually" and instead do "any alignment" for most monsters, besides Celestials, Fiends, Undead, and Aberrations (which would have the usually).

Rewriting the main description page for orcs and drow takes more work but it's still a change of fluff. They can start by editing just a minimal amount of sentences using errata, but even replacing the whole page does not require a new book.

I am curious at how the MM will look in 6e, like if Orcs or Drow are still in it, and basic Dwarves, Elves, and Dragonborn, etc, are not.

I don't really think ability scores bonus are the problem, but these can also be simply replaced with errata by non-specific ability increases like for humans, for example "increase any ability by 2, increase another by 1".

That kind of seems like the direction they're heading. They're going to release another book this year for 5e with changes similar to this. I'm just curious as to what these changes will evolve to in 6e.

On the other hand, the game needs even more diverse artwork than it currently has, specifically it needs more non-white/westerners good races ie. elves, dwarves and halflings. I don't think necessarily changing artwork in the PHB which might be harder than changing text, but increasing representation in upcoming books and adventures.

I agree with this completely.