• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D (2024) Half Race Appreciation Society: Half Elf most popular race choice in BG3

Do you think Half Elf being most popular BG3 race will cause PHB change?s?

  • Yes, Elf (and possibly other specieses) will get a hybrid option.

    Votes: 10 8.7%
  • Yes, a crunchier hybrid species system will be created

    Votes: 8 7.0%
  • Yes, a fluffier hybrid species system will be created

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • No, the playtest hybrid rules will move forward

    Votes: 71 61.7%
  • No, hybrids will move to the DMG and setting books.

    Votes: 13 11.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 7.0%


log in or register to remove this ad

And if those things never mattered to D&D I doubt I'd have a problem. But they have mattered. A lot. For decades.
I have found that gods and cosmology and planes used to matter to people, and maybe still matters to a small number of people, but not at all to the majority (all in my opinion). Just look at how gods are handled in the PHB for 5e: for Clerics? Optional. Or merely window dressing for your ability selection. Paladins? Worthless. Warlocks? Take em or leave em, once you select a patron, the rules don’t say anything useful about ongoing interaction, unless you really want to dive into it. We can just worship a concept or ideal or oath or something. But there is no actual need for gods and planes and cosmology to play the game - unless you’re playing Tier 4 with plane hopping, or interacting with said gods, which is likely a small proportion of tables.

I miss those things mattering more, but I’m also 40 years into the hobby. It’s easier to give the quickest veneer of mention in the PHB or the DMG, talk about how they could be done, and job’s a good ‘un. Let the tables figure it out if they really want it.
 

I have found that gods and cosmology and planes used to matter to people, and maybe still matters to a small number of people, but not at all to the majority (all in my opinion). Just look at how gods are handled in the PHB for 5e: for Clerics? Optional. Or merely window dressing for your ability selection. Paladins? Worthless. Warlocks? Take em or leave em, once you select a patron, the rules don’t say anything useful about ongoing interaction, unless you really want to dive into it. We can just worship a concept or ideal or oath or something. But there is no actual need for gods and planes and cosmology to play the game - unless you’re playing Tier 4 with plane hopping, or interacting with said gods, which is likely a small proportion of tables.

I miss those things mattering more, but I’m also 40 years into the hobby. It’s easier to give the quickest veneer of mention in the PHB or the DMG, talk about how they could be done, and job’s a good ‘un. Let the tables figure it out if they really want it.
As I've said before, popularity does not matter to me, and has nothing to do with creativity or quality of design as far as I'm concerned. My issue is that WotC D&D has changed dramatically over time, especially over the last few years in terms of design direction, while continuing to take up the same space in the public consciousness (more space actually). This has the effect of pushing older concepts out, because new stuff (which is fine in principle) isn't really additive when it takes up all the air in the room. I want things to be additive.
 

I have found that gods and cosmology and planes used to matter to people, and maybe still matters to a small number of people, but not at all to the majority (all in my opinion). Just look at how gods are handled in the PHB for 5e: for Clerics? Optional. Or merely window dressing for your ability selection. Paladins? Worthless. Warlocks? Take em or leave em, once you select a patron, the rules don’t say anything useful about ongoing interaction, unless you really want to dive into it. We can just worship a concept or ideal or oath or something. But there is no actual need for gods and planes and cosmology to play the game - unless you’re playing Tier 4 with plane hopping, or interacting with said gods, which is likely a small proportion of tables.

I miss those things mattering more, but I’m also 40 years into the hobby. It’s easier to give the quickest veneer of mention in the PHB or the DMG, talk about how they could be done, and job’s a good ‘un. Let the tables figure it out if they really want it.
Religion and gods are a subject that "session zero" must determine if players want to opt into. In any case, the subject is setting-specific. Normally the setting that the players choose addresses the subject to the degree that the players want. Core rules need to be as setting-neutral as possible.

However, with regard to backgrounds only, I think it is ok for a background to be setting-specific. Most worlds have a diversity of sacred traditions and worldviews. The backgrounds can sample some of the prominent ones that exist in the default setting, undoubtedly Forgotten Realms. If players want a background whose flavor is devotion to one of its gods, or to an animistic neighborly relationship, or an idealistic paladin order, the players can choose it for their own character concepts.
 

The 2024 Players Handbook must make clear the stats of an Elf whose parents come from different elven communities.

Or else. The WotC message will be, that different ethnicities arent allowed to intermarry each other.

The message and the mechanics need to be, that the various elven cultures can and do have children together.
 




No it is not.

At best, you are going to get a

1. Grab bag approach of listed attributes.
2. "Pick your 'real species' rules.

Neither are great.
D&D mechanics are often excellent, but not always.

Whatever the mechanics, it needs to be a normal part of the Elf species description, that a character can come from and belong to, more than one elven culture.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top