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

[Crimson Longinus]

Most of these are good, but I think there are two which are just things people would like to see and are trying to piggyback them on inclusivity even though they're not about that. These are getting rid of racial ability bonuses and total removal of alignment. I don't like the former and I would very much like to see the latter, but these are not inclusivity issues.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think you'd still need a default culture in the PHB for new players to know what a dwarf is. Height and weight isn't going to be enough. On the other hand, I think there must be a way to include that information that makes it clear it's subject to change for any of the various reasons someone might want to change it, such as setting, or even that the description is just about 'typical' dwarves and many dwarf communities will differ - plus the fact that pc's are exceptional.

As for ability score improvements - if we're talking 6e I'd almost rather they get rid of starting ability mods altogether and just give more generous point buy or assume lower starting numbers in the game math. Remove the complexity since it isn't serving a purpose anymore.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think you'd still need a default culture in the PHB for new players to know what a dwarf is. Height and weight isn't going to be enough. On the other hand, I think there must be a way to include that information that makes it clear it's subject to change for any of the various reasons someone might want to change it, such as setting, or even that the description is just about 'typical' dwarves and many dwarf communities will differ - plus the fact that pc's are exceptional.

Does it have to be in the PHB? I think most people will know what a Dwarf is without a description of their culture in the PHB. I think it would work best if it was in the DMG, just to make it a bit clearer that not every dwarf is this way, and instead is the base for the core rulebooks.

As for ability score improvements - if we're talking 6e I'd almost rather they get rid of starting ability mods altogether and just give more generous point buy or assume lower starting numbers in the game math. Remove the complexity since it isn't serving a purpose anymore.

They could do that. Give a 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, and 8 for Standard Array, or something like that. Point Buy could just raise the maximum score for 2 of your abilities, and give you 3-4 more points to use.

This would probably have to make Point Buy the base for character creation, which I'm honestly fine with. If rolling was still the base, they would still need a "racial bonus" of some sort (maybe not tied to race).

 

[Deset Gled]

Okay, I want D&D to be more inclusive in the future. I'm all for removing "race" as a term. I'm okay with no more "always evil" humanoids. I'm comfortable with a different alignment systems. But...

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 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.

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.
...

Also-- get rid of weapons tables. ...

The same could maybe be done for AC. ... 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 think a possible 6e should make alignment totally optional. Much like feats.

Suggestions like these are just too much for me. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm quoting multiple people here because I don't want to pick on any persons ideas specifically. Rather, I'm saying that there is a limit to how "rules light" a system can be, and these are examples that go past that limit (IMNSHO).

There's only so much you can remove from D+D before it stops being an RPG system. I'm not talking about just "feel" or "fluff". The base game needs a core set of solid mechanics that the rest of the game is built from. For a fantasy setting, that includes things like elves and goblins that are mechanically different from humans. Mythical beasts that are aligned with gods and demons. And fencers and knights and berserkers that have different numbers on their character sheets next to their swords, not just different flavor text.

There is no reason "inclusive" has to by synonymous with "rules light".

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Most of these are good, but I think there are two which are just things people would like to see and are trying to piggyback them on inclusivity even though they're not about that. These are racial ability bonuses and total removal of alignment. I don't like the former and I would very much like to see the latter, but these are not inclusivity issues.

I added the changeable Ability Score increases because it was mentioned in WotC's Inclusivity announcement. I added the alignment bit to make it so races aren't tied to any specific alignment anymore.

 

[Minigiant]

Suggestions like these are just too much for me. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm quoting multiple people here because I don't want to pick on any persons ideas specifically. Rather, I'm saying that there is a limit to how "rules light" a system can be, and these are examples that go past that limit (IMNSHO).

There's only so much you can remove from D+D before it stops being an RPG system. I'm not talking about just "feel" or "fluff". The base game needs a core set of solid mechanics that the rest of the game is built from. For a fantasy setting, that includes things like elves and goblins that are mechanically different from humans. Mythical beasts that are aligned with gods and demons. And fencers and knights and berserkers that have different numbers on their character sheets next to their swords, not just different flavor text.

There is no reason "inclusive" has to by synonymous with "rules light".

I'm not suggesting removing alignment completely. I'm suggesting treating the 9 point alignment the same as other D&D style alignment system. The LG-CE model doesn't work for every setting and D&D is a game with multiple settings.

At some point, the rules and lore have to start meshing. And one will have the bow to the other sometimes.

 

[TheSword]

Just out of interest, what is a (+) thread?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think most people will know what a Dwarf is without a description of their culture in the PHB.

But if someone's picking up the PHB for the first time, you really can't assume that. Especially if you want them to be DnD dwarves/elves/etc rather than just "short people."

 

[MGibster]

If you want to be inclusive, you have take new players into consideration. They're going to have to have a little bit of information about who and what a wood elf, drow, or gully dwarf is all about. Okay, maybe leave gully dwarfs out.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But if someone's picking up the PHB for the first time, you really can't assume that. Especially if you want them to be DnD dwarves/elves/etc rather than just "short people."

So, should it stay the same as it is now? If we're describing the races, how are we describing them? It has to be setting specific, so what setting? Are we keeping the sections of how the races think of the other races stereotypically, do we continue describing their gods?

If you keep them, that raises a lot of questions as well.

I've given my solution (put the cultural descriptions only in the DMG and setting books), what's yours?