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

[FrogReaver]

All people are equal. Not all people are human.

You are just using equal differently than I. There is equal in terms of value (not what I was referring to) and equal in terms of abilities ( what I was referring to). The worldview today is that every human regardless of subgroup is equal in terms of ability. No human subgroup is any stronger or more intelligent than another because they are all part of the human race.

That’s not the case for non-Human people. Or at least not necessarily so.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

You are just using equal differently than I. There is equal in terms of value (not what I was referring to) and equal in terms of abilities ( what I was referring to). The worldview today is that every human regardless of subgroup is equal in terms of ability. No human subgroup is any stronger or more intelligent than another because they are all part of the human race.

That’s not the case for non-Human people. Or at least not necessarily so.

Depends on the subgroups. Pro basketball players are probably taller than pro limboers.

 

[Remathilis]

I think removing classes is changing too much. That's ripping out the heart of the game. There are plenty of other system that might accommodate you, though.

Ideally, I'd like to see 4-5 major classes (warrior, rogue, cleric, mage, psionic) and each of them be able to build different types of PCs with. A warrior could be built as a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a berserker, a knight, a samurai, an arcane archer, etc. You could buy abilities and mix them, such as a zealot using berserker and paladin abilities.

You could also buy abilities from other classes, such as a warrior learning arcane magic, but at a higher cost. That's your multiclassing.

 

[Hussar]

Ideally, I'd like to see 4-5 major classes (warrior, rogue, cleric, mage, psionic) and each of them be able to build different types of PCs with. A warrior could be built as a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a berserker, a knight, a samurai, an arcane archer, etc. You could buy abilities and mix them, such as a zealot using berserker and paladin abilities.

You could also buy abilities from other classes, such as a warrior learning arcane magic, but at a higher cost. That's your multiclassing.

Heh. and they crucified 4e for not being D&D.

It's a cool idea mind you. But, good luck getting this idea off the ground.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

[/QUOTE]

Ideally, I'd like to see 4-5 major classes (warrior, rogue, cleric, mage, psionic) and each of them be able to build different types of PCs with. A warrior could be built as a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a berserker, a knight, a samurai, an arcane archer, etc. You could buy abilities and mix them, such as a zealot using berserker and paladin abilities.

You could also buy abilities from other classes, such as a warrior learning arcane magic, but at a higher cost. That's your multiclassing.

Sounds similar to SW SAGA. If well done, I could get behind that - but it wouldn't be D&D. Sounds fun, though.

 

[Derren]

All people are equal. Not all people are human.

Wrong. All people are human because elves and dwarves do not actually exist. The whole "all people are equal" only works because only humans are people.
If elves and dwarfs would exist, as we pretend them to be in D&D, they would be different to humans, again how we pretend them to be in D&D.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Ideally, I'd like to see 4-5 major classes (warrior, rogue, cleric, mage, psionic) and each of them be able to build different types of PCs with. A warrior could be built as a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a berserker, a knight, a samurai, an arcane archer, etc. You could buy abilities and mix them, such as a zealot using berserker and paladin abilities.

You could also buy abilities from other classes, such as a warrior learning arcane magic, but at a higher cost. That's your multiclassing.

Thinking about it again, I would probably enjoy playing in your game, but I wouldn't run it. The two worlds I've created and run are very thematic. 20-30% of sub-classes don't fit them very well. One world is human only. I would want more control over player-character options in order to ensure legitimacy of those settings.

 

[TheSword]

The idea of attribute bonuses for races is one rooted in colonialism and modern pseudo scientific racism.

I don’t think so. You missed out the word human in your sentence. Humans are not predisposed to be stronger, smarter, more charismatic or wiser than other human ethnicities.

There is nothing colonial or pseudoscientific about dwarves being predisposed to be tougher than Elves.

 

[FrogReaver]

Depends on the subgroups. Pro basketball players are probably taller than pro limboers.

i know it’s the internet and all and we have nothing better but to point out someone’s words are technically wrong, but that’s obviously not the kind of subgroup I was talking about

 

[Maxperson]

You made an extreme claim about other people’s position, without anything to back said claim up.

You just argued to me in another thread that it wasn't the job of the person making the claim to back it up, but rather it was the job of the reader to Google it. So...