D&D 5E WotC to increase releases per year?

[Remathilis]

I know I am beating a dead horse here but...

Yeah, I get that. Seeing as that smoke isn't going back in the bottle, I'd like there to be some more low level monsters that don't need due process to smite. Without a significant change to CRs, the low level foes list will be made up of mundane animals, mindless undead and some minor plant foes. Oh, and bandits and cultists of interchangeable species. The more inhuman foes start at 5th level and the interesting ones like mind-flayers and demons are mid to high level.

If the formerly monstrous humanoids are getting equal billing now, we should get some inhuman low level monsters to take their place, a demon-infused, barely-sentient, bipedal hyenas are a suitable foe to fight without remorse and moral quandary.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, I get that. Seeing as that smoke isn't going back in the bottle, I'd like there to be some more low level monsters that don't need due process to smite. Without a significant change to CRs, the low level foes list will be made up of mundane animals, mindless undead and some minor plant foes. Oh, and bandits and cultists of interchangeable species. The more inhuman foes start at 5th level and the interesting ones like mind-flayers and demons are mid to high level.

If the formerly monstrous humanoids are getting equal billing now, we should get some inhuman low level monsters to take their place, a demon-infused, barely-sentient, bipedal hyenas are a suitable foe to fight without remorse and moral quandary.

We should make some, just by reskinning some core monsters. For example, replace kobolds with:

CR 1/8 - Sin Whelps: When an evil human succumbs to one of the Seven Deadly sins and dies as a result (ex: eating oneself to death for Gluttony), their corpse bursts forth with 2d4+2 of these foul imps. Each "breed" of sin whelp has a distinct appearance based on the sin from which they were spawn, but all have identical stats. Sin whelps infest areas where free willed creatures exist, torturing, attacking and often kidnapping those who give in to base desires related to the whelps' sin.

 

[Dire Bare]

I mean, you can't use bandits either. That is even worse than orcs, arguably, from the perspective that you are turning sentient people into cannon fodder.

Sure you can use bandits. Bandits CHOSE to be bandits, orcs don't choose to be orcs. Of course, you can get into the WHY behind that choice, common folk driven by poverty, discrimination, and oppression turning to banditry to survive, and perhaps as a form of vengeance against their oppressors. Is it okay to kill bandits just because they are bandits? No, but if the bandits are trying to kill you, or someone you wish to protect, you might not have much choice. Same with cultists, or terrorists . . . folks who CHOSE to be bad, even if you can sympathize with their reasons for doing so, they still need to be stopped one way or the other.

In my games, I avoid using "cannon-fodder" as unnecessary and reductive altogether. Especially the "it's okay to kill them without remorse, 'cause they evil" types of cannon-fodder. It's been an adjustment, for me and my players, but having the PCs feel free to resort to violence and kill without qualms or second-thoughts . . . that's not a play-style I'm interested in. I still use perma-evil baddies like fiends, or alien aberrations (not evil, but hungry) . . . but I try to save those for more climactic encounters.

I know I am beating a dead horse here but I'll say it one more time for the back: orcs are not a racist trope unless YOU decide they are in YOUR game. If you want to use orcs as irredeemable bad guys, just do so. Hell, use "Easterlings" if you want. Fantasy monsters and races are not stand ins for real world anything unless you decide they are, so don't do that. Or do. You are allowed to do that to. You can talk about how different cultures paint their enemies as an inhuman Other and say their gods are demons, etc... Just make sure your players are in for that first. And if you are going to publish or broadcast it, make it clear to your audience what you are doing and why.

Ugh. Hard disagree.

 

[Reynard]

Sure you can use bandits. Bandits CHOSE to be bandits, orcs don't choose to be orcs. Of course, you can get into the WHY behind that choice, common folk driven by poverty, discrimination, and oppression turning to banditry to survive, and perhaps as a form of vengeance against their oppressors. Is it okay to kill bandits just because they are bandits? No, but if the bandits are trying to kill you, or someone you wish to protect, you might not have much choice. Same with cultists, or terrorists . . . folks who CHOSE to be bad, even if you can sympathize with their reasons for doing so, they still need to be stopped one way or the other.

In my games, I avoid using "cannon-fodder" as unnecessary and reductive altogether. Especially the "it's okay to kill them without remorse, 'cause they evil" types of cannon-fodder. It's been an adjustment, for me and my players, but having the PCs feel free to resort to violence and kill without qualms or second-thoughts . . . that's not a play-style I'm interested in. I still use perma-evil baddies like fiends, or alien aberrations (not evil, but hungry) . . . but I try to save those for more climactic encounters.


Ugh. Hard disagree.

I admit to being completely unable to understand a setup where mowing down "terrorists" is okay but not a race of inherently evil creatures forged by a dark god.

 

[Oofta]

Do we really need another thread shut down because the same people are arguing the same thing? I'm counting myself in that - I don't think calling a group "bandits", "terrorists" or any other label is inherently better than having a race of evil creatures as cannon fodder. I actually think it's kind of worse.

But ... I don't see a point discussing it, it's been made pretty clear that this topic is effectively verboten.

 

[Reynard]

Do we really need another thread shut down because the same people are arguing the same thing? I'm counting myself in that - I don't think calling a group "bandits", "terrorists" or any other label is inherently better than having a race of evil creatures as cannon fodder. I actually think it's kind of worse.

But ... I don't see a point discussing it, it's been made pretty clear that this topic is effectively verboten.

You're right, of course. I shouldn't have brought it up again.

On topic: give me a 5E equivalent of Pathfinder's Complete Campaign, please: lots of DM facing rules for everything from domain management and mass combat, to environmental hazards, planar travel, etc... I don't expect a whole line of books a la 3.5 era guides, but one big DM expansion would be lovely.

 

[bedir than]

Punishing peoples for their acts is justice.
Punishing peoples for their existence is evil.

It's that simple.

 

[Dire Bare]

I admit to being completely unable to understand a setup where mowing down "terrorists" is okay but not a race of inherently evil creatures forged by a dark god.

Did you read my post?

I avoid cannon-fodder altogether. I avoid putting my players in situations where "mowing down terrorists/bandits/cultists/orcs/gnolls" is the clear way forward.

And we still have "inherently evil creatures forged by a dark god" . . . fiends, or fiends-of-the-material-world (gnolls). It's when you take an "evil" race, put them on the same level as other "mortal" races, and use language to describe them that mirrors how we dehumanize real people in the real world, to make them "people that are not-people and OK to mow down".

Can you give orcs a similar backstory to the current demonic gnoll? Sure, but I think that ship has sailed with orcs already being commonly portrayed as fully sentient folks, if with a stereotypical "savage" and violent culture. I like how Warcraft handles it . . . . there is a faction of orcs who chose (or, perhaps, were tricked into choosing) to dedicate themselves to demonic powers, and another faction trying to free their people from this sort of self-imposed oppression.

 

[Oofta]

Did you read my post?

I avoid cannon-fodder altogether. I avoid putting my players in situations where "mowing down terrorists/bandits/cultists/orcs/gnolls" is the clear way forward.

And we still have "inherently evil creatures forged by a dark god" . . . fiends, or fiends-of-the-material-world (gnolls). It's when you take an "evil" race, put them on the same level as other "mortal" races, and use language to describe them that mirrors how we dehumanize real people in the real world, to make them "people that are not-people and OK to mow down".

Can you give orcs a similar backstory to the current demonic gnoll? Sure, but I think that ship has sailed with orcs already being commonly portrayed as fully sentient folks, if with a stereotypical "savage" and violent culture. I like how Warcraft handles it . . . . there is a faction of orcs who chose (or, perhaps, were tricked into choosing) to dedicate themselves to demonic powers, and another faction trying to free their people from this sort of self-imposed oppression.

In my world they're all dedicated. Then again I guess I don't use "standard" orcs either.

But ... can we just agree to disagree and move on? Unless of course you want to have another thread shut down?

 

[Dire Bare]

Punishing peoples for their acts is justice.
Punishing peoples for their existence is evil.

It's that simple.

This is a pretty good simplification. I would go a step further and remove the idea of "punishment" and replace it with the idea of "protection".

Don't commit violence against someone simply for who they are . . . orc, gnoll, or bandit. But be ready to defend yourself and those who need protection from those who choose to do violence or oppress others.