D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Ruin Explorer]

Ok. So they are not more popular than before as PC options? That’s what I meant.

is there not a lot more fan art than before?

aside from unpopular 4e is not their inclusion in PHB indicative of more use and popularity?

the fact that they existed and some people liked them is not synonymous with the widespread popularity they enjoy now.

how many tables have them now compared to the 10 years ago (much less 94)?

I was just being silly, I wouldn't take me too seriously.

I feel like they've steadily gained popularity since 1994 but were immediately popular, at least in the groups I saw - and they immediately started appear in other settings, like the Forgotten Realms, whilst 2E was still going. In 2017 they were just behind dragonborn with only humans, elves, half-elves and dwarves above them, and I suspect they'll have passed dragonborn by now, given the huge number of tiefling variants (rivaled only by elves).

Re: "10 years ago", I dunno, I suspect they're more popular now, but less drastically so than the 1994-2008 climb which lead to them being a core race in 4E. I was actually slightly surprised they weren't in 3.XE, but their eventual 3.XE implementation was kind of terrible, implying they were all evil as hell, or struggling not to be, and giving them a very questionable LA (ooooh Darkness 1/day and crummy resistances, that's totally the same as being a level higher, guys!). I feel like the terrible-ness of the 3E implementation probably limited their popularity there for a while.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I was just being silly, I wouldn't take me too seriously.

I feel like they've steadily gained popularity since 1994 but were immediately popular, at least in the groups I saw - and they immediately started appear in other settings, like the Forgotten Realms, whilst 2E was still going. In 2017 they were just behind dragonborn with only humans, elves, half-elves and dwarves above them, and I suspect they'll have passed dragonborn by now, given the huge number of tiefling variants (rivaled only by elves).

Re: "10 years ago", I dunno, I suspect they're more popular now, but less drastically so than the 1994-2008 climb which lead to them being a core race in 4E. I was actually slightly surprised they weren't in 3.XE, but their eventual 3.XE implementation was kind of terrible, implying they were all evil as hell, or struggling not to be, and giving them a very questionable LA (ooooh Darkness 1/day and crummy resistances, that's totally the same as being a level higher, guys!). I feel like the terrible-ness of the 3E implementation probably limited their popularity there for a while.

That’s good perspective. My questions are partially due to my lack of engagement with 3.5 and 4. So I missed some things for sure.

when I came back to the game so to speak I was shocked about the apparent ubiquity of tieflings! Other would be less so if they saw it earlier!

thanks for the education. I just did not know. My experience with devil people was more with cambions from the old days! Mm2?

early on I had a pc married to a chaotic good 1/2 succubus. We’re talking 1e as a kid!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That’s good perspective. My questions are partially due to my lack of engagement with 3.5 and 4. So I missed some things for sure.

when I came back to the game so to speak I was shocked about the apparent ubiquity of tieflings! Other would be less so if they saw it earlier!

thanks for the education. I just did not know. My experience with devil people was more with cambions from the old days! Mm2?

early on I had a pc married to a chaotic good 1/2 succubus. We’re talking 1e as a kid!

Yeah I think it was a case of unmet demand suddenly finding an actual outlet.

I think there was always a bit of a demand, because being like, the son of the devil but a good guy has been a thing since what, at latest the early 1970s? Marvel had a "Son of Satan" comic back then. And I heard a lot of stories from 1E players that involved PC cambions or cambion-like beings.

But then the 1990s really ratcheted that whole deal up a notch, with tons of varying levels of "seems like they'd conventionally be evil but is actually good or at least a heroic badass" comic books, whether it's Gaiman's Death or Spawn from the Image comics, and god like, the whole White Wolf World of Darkness phenomenon was huge with all sorts of scary supernatural beings suddenly being playable (indeed there are a lot of smaller RPGs with similar themes from that era). Even stuff like RIFTS had a lot of scary monsters who were actually potentially friendly (even scary psychic worms who were actually good guys!). And I think it was serving that largely unmet demand I mentioned.

Planescape itself felt like a (successful) "please come back to AD&D, it's cool again now!" product for groups like mine which had largely shifted to other games, and Tieflings were certainly part of that.

I think the only other race which has been remotely as successful since then has been Dragonborn, but I always wonder how much of that is down to being the only corebook race with a +2 STR bonus (I am aware some Dwarves also do in 5E).

I mean, that's something actually that might impact 6E - the removal of racial ASIs is likely to shift weight from the ASIs to both theme and other abilities, but I think theme is going to be big. It'll be very interesting to see if certain races/lineages get less or more popular after that becomes standard or more common. I would expect Dragonborn to slip a bit further, because they don't nail the "dragonman" fantasy with their lack of tails or wings (and I imagine they're already drastically less popular than 2017, as so many people will now have access to other +2 STR races). Tieflings may slip or even become more popular, given they'll now be applicable to all classes. I'm particularly interested to see what happens with elves, esp. if they balance them so they don't have objectively better racials than most others.

As stuff shifts around over the rest of 5E and in the 6E playtest I think we may see some different races in the PHB for 6E. I suspect we'll just see more though, because the lineage approach is potentially more compact and easier to balance.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yeah I think it was a case of unmet demand suddenly finding an actual outlet.

I think there was always a bit of a demand, because being like, the son of the devil but a good guy has been a thing since what, at latest the early 1970s? Marvel had a "Son of Satan" comic back then. And I heard a lot of stories from 1E players that involved PC cambions or cambion-like beings.

But then the 1990s really ratcheted that whole deal up a notch, with tons of varying levels of "seems like they'd conventionally be evil but is actually good or at least a heroic badass" comic books, whether it's Gaiman's Death or Spawn from the Image comics, and god like, the whole White Wolf World of Darkness phenomenon was huge with all sorts of scary supernatural beings suddenly being playable (indeed there are a lot of smaller RPGs with similar themes from that era). Even stuff like RIFTS had a lot of scary monsters who were actually potentially friendly (even scary psychic worms who were actually good guys!). And I think it was serving that largely unmet demand I mentioned.

Planescape itself felt like a (successful) "please come back to AD&D, it's cool again now!" product for groups like mine which had largely shifted to other games, and Tieflings were certainly part of that.

I think the only other race which has been remotely as successful since then has been Dragonborn, but I always wonder how much of that is down to being the only corebook race with a +2 STR bonus (I am aware some Dwarves also do in 5E).

I mean, that's something actually that might impact 6E - the removal of racial ASIs is likely to shift weight from the ASIs to both theme and other abilities, but I think theme is going to be big. It'll be very interesting to see if certain races/lineages get less or more popular after that becomes standard or more common. I would expect Dragonborn to slip a bit further, because they don't nail the "dragonman" fantasy with their lack of tails or wings (and I imagine they're already drastically less popular than 2017, as so many people will now have access to other +2 STR races). Tieflings may slip or even become more popular, given they'll now be applicable to all classes. I'm particularly interested to see what happens with elves, esp. if they balance them so they don't have objectively better racials than most others.

As stuff shifts around over the rest of 5E and in the 6E playtest I think we may see some different races in the PHB for 6E. I suspect we'll just see more though, because the lineage approach is potentially more compact and easier to balance.

I am thinking I might like to play one. I like the stories behind the varieties such as mammon tiefling and Zariel. Lots of fun story options and potentially cool aesthetics. A greedy fat tiefling from mammon stock could be fun(ny).

 

[Flamestrike]

Semantics. The 1e MM defines a monsters alignment as the "characteristic bent towards law/chaos...good/evil". And the definition of inherent means a characteristic of something.

But the point being, is that humanoids like orcs or drow are assumed to be evil, and are treated as evil, are described as evil, and defaulted to evil races for all intents and purposes. And that's now changed and will remain changed going forward.

Thats as ridiculous as saying 'because all Orcs are listed witth 15HP and Greataxes and Strengths of 17, all Orcs have 15HP, Great-axes and Strengths of 17 as inherent traits.

We've had canonical Good aligned Orcs since the early 80's in DnD. The alignment section on monster entries has only ever been a generalization based on typical behaviors, not some kind of 'moral and ethical hardwiring'.

Orcs are usually evil, because they mostly worship Gruumsh, engage in rape and pillage and violence, and culturally tend to view mercy and compassion as weaknesses.

Its not due to some inherent biological hardwiring, and it never has been.

 

[Flamestrike]

Also the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2E, from 1993,

You can go further back to AD&D for an entire culture of Lawful Good aligned Orcs called the Ondonti. They would actually adopt orphaned Orc children from barbaric Orc tribes, and raise them to embrace peace and harmony (and be Good aligned as well).

Pretty sure Orcs of Thar for BECMI stated that Lawful (BECMI's 'Good' alignment) were entirely possible as well.

Orcs have never been 'inherently' evil. Quick to anger (which would give them a tendency towards violence and thus Evil alignments) but entirely capable of being LG aligned.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Um...weird. I think my post just appeared in a different thread than the one I thought I was posting in.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Thats as ridiculous as saying 'because all Orcs are listed witth 15HP and Greataxes and Strengths of 17, all Orcs have 15HP, Great-axes and Strengths of 17 as inherent traits.

The old 1e era days didn't call out 15 hp, great axes, or str 17. You're making up false claims that didn't exist. They did have 1 HD, and you can be sure that people assumed they had 1 HD for a typical orc, and not something different just because there did exist orcs somewhere that had a different value. Just like when they were assigned "lawful evil" as an alignment, people assumed orcs in general to be evil.

We've had canonical Good aligned Orcs since the early 80's in DnD. The alignment section on monster entries has only ever been a generalization based on typical behaviors, not some kind of 'moral and ethical hardwiring'.

Orcs are usually evil, because they mostly worship Gruumsh, engage in rape and pillage and violence, and culturally tend to view mercy and compassion as weaknesses.

Its not due to some inherent biological hardwiring, and it never has been.

I can see you're completely missing my point for...whatever reason, I'm not sure at this point. Whether or not a good orc existed somewhere in no way removes the problems of having the official alignment for a particular race as evil, and for people to assume "orc = evil" whenever they run into one.

 

[Flamestrike]

The old 1e era days... Just like when they were assigned "lawful evil" as an alignment, people assumed orcs in general to be evil.

In the 1E Monster Manual, Elves are listed as Chaotic Good.

Are you arguing that Elves are all 'inherently' CG, or that this was just a cultural tendency, and generalization, and individual Elves could be of any alignment?

It it's the latter, apply the same reasoning to Orcs.

I can see you're completely missing my point for...whatever reason, I'm not sure at this point. Whether or not a good orc existed somewhere in no way removes the problems of having the official alignment for a particular race as evil, and for people to assume "orc = evil" whenever they run into one.

People can assume Orcs are evil when they meet one, for no other reason other than they're Orcs. Those people would be racists. It's also called judging a book by its cover.

The correct assumption would be that (as Orcs can be of any alignment) you take each Orc as they come.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In the 1E Monster Manual, Elves are listed as Chaotic Good.

Are you arguing that Elves are all 'inherently' CG, or that this was just a cultural tendency, and generalization, and individual Elves could be of any alignment?

It it's the latter, apply the same reasoning to Orcs.

Yes, someone picking up the MM and seeing the elf entry would assume any non-PC elf to be CG. Because that's what the book told them.

People can assume Orcs are evil when they meet one, for no other reason other than they're Orcs. Those people would be racists. It's also called judging a book by its cover.

The correct assumption would be that (as Orcs can be of any alignment) you take each Orc as they come.

totally wrong. When that book came out in 1979, people assumed orcs to be evil because that's what they were literally described as in the book. They didn't assume they were evil because they were racist, they assumed they were evil because we were all told they were evil. As part of the rules.

You're arguing the absurd, and at the very least arguing from a disingenuous position of using today's modern lens to apply to gamers in 1979. In 1979, and into the early 80s (and even longer), people treated orcs as universally evil because that's what the game labeled them as. A one off exception that came out years later doesn't change that. Nor do rules changes in 1993 change how they were treated in 1979 or 1983 or whenever.

You're arguing that the only reason gamers back then treated orcs to be evil was because they were racist, and it is nonsense. And if that's your position, then we have nothing to discuss going forward.