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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't need a lot of realism in my game, and if the campaign world is such that goblins can have any strength because they don't follow the laws of physiology and physics that halflings, humans, and ogres do, then great. If that's how it is then I'll expect everyone to be darn careful in judging goblins by their looks.

My guess is that most worlds have some expectation of things like physiology and physics for things that are seemingly "normal" working similar to the real world. The really buff normal house cat isn't going to beat the really buff normal lion at killing the person who snuck into the cage. The normal shetland pony isn't going to be a better choice to pull the heavy wagon than the normal clydesdale. And the non-magical halfling weightlifter is certainly going to lose to the non-magical half-orc weightlifter.

Who cares if a PC goblin (in a world without magically any-strengthed Goblins) that has devoted everything to STR can get the same STR as a half-orc or dragonborn that devoted everything to STR? Maybe the person who picked the bigger stronger race explicitly to be bigger and stronger? Is it not enough for the goblin player that they can be within a measly 2 point difference from the dragonborn that went all out? Why doesn't the player who chose to play to type's story matter at all?

Also, there's the fact that small races are already disadvantaged mechanically with heavy weapons and that larger races often have Powerful Build, which shows the fact that smaller races be weaker, even if the Ability Scores don't show that directly.

 

[Cadence]

A typical halfling or Gnome is about 2 to 3 ft tall, a creature of similar height? Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are also quite a lot stronger than your average human, because of the way their muscles work (current guesses for the reasoning include that they have more explosive strength, but less endurance and fine motor control).

Now, I don't want to get into the science of biology and muscles, I just want to point out that in terms of size in feet compared to strength, this isn't as absurd as people keep making it out to be.

That's a great example (and I'm embarrassed for not having though of it). Thank you!

If nothing else that would make a great explanation if someone wanted to have a race that was small but super strong in general (say you wanted super-strong goblins in your world, but not due to magic).

It still feels a bit odd to think of just one having that though. I'm picturing a twilight zone or looney tunes episode or something where someone's 1st grade child has the strength of an adult chimpanzee. It would certainly be the stuff of legends.

So, after the halfling sized character says they want a strength bonus because they're like a chimpanzee, can the dragonborn or half-orc as for an even bigger bonus because they're like a gorilla?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But I like the idea of INT or WIS character to for combat to hit and damage because of a well chosen or sensed strike location. And the reason I'd argue for a class that does that instead of just letting any ability apply, is that I don't see how it's reasonable, say to have one who bases to hit in melee on CON or CHR. Just as there are some stats that I would argue don't make particular sense for casting wizard spells or picking pockets or tracking someone in the woods.

There are already ways to use weapons based on these Ability Scores (not Constitution). Hexblades can use Charisma, Battle Smiths can use Intelligence, Shillelagh uses your spellcasting modifier (Wisdom), Finesse allows for Strength and Dexterity. The only one that 5e does not allow you to use for weapon attacks to be based off of are Constitution. I think you should be able to use these ability scores for weapon combat, but it has almost nothing to do with inclusivity, should IMHO be limited similarly to how it is in 5e already, and this really isn't in the scope of the thread.

 

[Cadence]

Also, there's the fact that small races are already disadvantaged mechanically with heavy weapons and that larger races often have Powerful Build, which shows the fact that smaller races be weaker, even if the Ability Scores don't show that directly.

I hadn't seen powerful build (at least recently enough to remember). Thank you!

Powerful build and the weapon difference does fix quite a bit, at least going from the smallest races to the largest ones.

I wonder if the "play any build just as well in combat" side would argue that the weapon restriction was unfair.


(Edit: And thank you for the list of ways to use the non-Con attributes.)

 

[Flamestrike]

It's hilarious that people think that Wizards is going to do away with Halflings, Orcs and Elves all of a sudden (or simply make them all the same) in the name of 'inclusiveness.'

Literally all they've said on the topic is:

1. We want to be careful we just dont cut and paste negative real world stereotypes into fictional human cultures (Vistani, Chultans, Maztica, Al Quadim etc) and also into non human cultures (all Orcs and dark skinned races are evil), and we want to flesh out those cultures as more than just dot point negative cultural stereotypes and worn out tropes.
2. We want to make it clearer that Humanoid alignment (and thus behaviours) are driven by free will and choice and not by 'instinct', and that no 'race' or 'culture' is inherently and irredeemably evil, fit only for genocide.

Suddenly everyone loses their minds and threads like this pop up. I literally cant even tell if the thread is a troll or not such is the level of misunderstanding about what WoTC have actually said on the topic, and the handwringing that followed it.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I'd say that that's a big nope. D&D hasn't been limited to medieval fantasy for a very long time, and it has strained against that restriction from at least 1e. Furthermore, D&D should strive to cover more fantasy more cultures just on the basis of world building (something many of us love to do) if for no other more lofty reason.

D&D may not be "limited" to medieval fantasy, but, let's be honest, that's where about 90% of it lives.

Whether you're talking about the Sword Coast or Icewind Dale, or Dragonlance, or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, the baseline assumptions of D&D is medieval at the very least, and probably Eurocentric. Asking what classes should be used to emulate First Nations people is like asking what classes should be used to emulate accountants. They are both about equally far removed from the baseline. Why would you expect the base rules to cover settings and cultures that are well outside the presumed genre of the game?

 

[Deset Gled]

For instance, I'm a furry and every character I'd make would be a Tabaxi. Tabaxi's come with a +2 to Dex and a +1 to cha. If I wanted to play a Barbarian my abilities don't line up at all. I could still make one and have some success with them, but I'd always know I picked a sub optimal build and feel some negative feelings about that. That feeling would then increase if my character died during play. Did that death happen because my character was deficient? It would be difficult to say, but I'd always wonder. A certain amount of risk of death is something most tables has to deal with, but with that risk comes the desire to mitigate it as much as possible through optimal character generation and play.

If you want to be a furry, buy yourself a Hat of Disguise and activate your fursuit whenever you want too. Pick whatever race and class you want. The rest is anxiety about powergaming.

I see where the Deepwarden adds their Con in place of Dex for AC. but didn't see where Deepwarden, Psychic Warrior, or Dwarven Defender actually uses the the Con bonus in place of Str or Dex for attacking. Similarly I didn't see an option for a Rogue, Paladin, or Iaijutsu warrior to use Chr in place of Str or Dex for attacking.

The Iaijutsu Master adds their Cha to damage when they use iaijutsu focus. Paladins use their Cha to cast Bless Weapon or Lay Hands. Rogues use their Cha to bluff and then get sneak attack damage. Psions use whatever revelevant psychokinesis (CON based powers) they want.

I mean, let us be frank for a second. A) Master is a masculine term B) None of us DMs are really the masters of the game.

Eh, I kinda see what you mean with this, but also kinda disagree. "Master" was historically masculine, but in modern terms has become non-gendered. I posted a list earlier of modern uses of the term "master", and all of them would be applied to females without switching to "mistress". "Mistress" has really become a completely separate term in modern usage.

 

[Spohedus]

I agree Flamestrike. Most of us, at each of our tables have not struggled with this topic at all for decades. This is a PR reaction for WotC much more than it is an actual game issue, and it has not really much to do with social justice, just so we're clear. Each table, whoever wonderful and diverse is sitting there playing with their friends, has worked these things out in a better fashion over the last 40+years than any edited 5e+ or press release from THE CORPORATION could ever do. We all have, and have had the freedom at our tables to make it so for Pete's Sake!

I'll just say it. I haven't seen any hate or prejudice implicit in the game's design, black elves and all. We all need to recognize just how inclusive this game has been and already is, and not cow-tow to the day's narrative screaming that rights need to be wronged at the gaming table. That's rubbish. I am perfectly fine with racism between actual races in a fantasy genre. I am anti-racist in my views of American culture in the real world. But playable races in a make-believe world are not different cultures. They are, in fact, different races/species.

 

[Coroc]

..... It’s that “master bedroom” gives a lot of folks the same vibes ...

For me as a non native speaker when I first heard the term (without having read it before) I thought of something totally different (think something dirty that really sounds alike) and wondered why they would talk such nonsense on MTV while keeping their face totally serious.

I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?

 

[FrogReaver]

It's hilarious that people think that Wizards is going to do away with Halflings, Orcs and Elves all of a sudden (or simply make them all the same) in the name of 'inclusiveness.'

Literally all they've said on the topic is:

1. We want to be careful we just dont cut and paste negative real world stereotypes into fictional human cultures (Vistani, Chultans, Maztica, Al Quadim etc) and also into non human cultures (all Orcs and dark skinned races are evil), and we want to flesh out those cultures as more than just dot point negative cultural stereotypes and worn out tropes.
2. We want to make it clearer that Humanoid alignment (and thus behaviours) are driven by free will and choice and not by 'instinct', and that no 'race' or 'culture' is inherently and irredeemably evil, fit only for genocide.

Suddenly everyone loses their minds and threads like this pop up. I literally cant even tell if the thread is a troll or not such is the level of misunderstanding about what WoTC have actually said on the topic, and the handwringing that followed it.

So if some people started talking about how racist fictional elves are, I think it's within the realm of possibility that there could be a demand to remove them or modify them and that wotc would cave to those demands. Would the resulting fictional race still be elves. Maybe. I'm not really sure how much we can change elves and orcs before they cease to be elves and orcs. All I know is that there exists some point where that's the case and that I want to stay far away from it.

The changes we are talking about are chaotic. The full outcome of them is unknown. If you want people to get on board you need to give them a vision of exactly what the change looks like and where it actually stops. Make the process of change have some actual order to it.