D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[MonsterEnvy]

Look at the changes to Spelljammer. It wasnt well received by well anyone.
Throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also see 4E FR.

Spelljammer was not disliked because of changes. It was disliked cause it was too short and didn’t give as much detail as it should have

As for Dragonborn in Dark Sun pretty sure the same path as 4e makes sense, they are the Dray.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How is that specifically for 5e?

In 3e I can have...

• The Empire (humans, orcs, halflings, and tieflings)
• The Mountain Kingdom (dwarves)
• The Hill Kingdom (dwarves and halflings)
• The Rebellion (humans, orcs, and aasimar)
• The Dragon Republics (dragonborn, lizardfolk, and kobolds)
• The Runic Theocracy (goliaths, orcs, and dwarves)
• The High Elves (elves and halflings)
• The Wood Elves (elves and gnomes)
• The Drow (elves)

In 4e I can have...

• The Empire (humans, orcs, halflings, and tieflings)
• The Mountain Kingdom (dwarves)
• The Hill Kingdom (dwarves and halflings)
• The Rebellion (humans, orcs, and aasimar)
• The Dragon Republics (dragonborn, lizardfolk, and kobolds)
• The Runic Theocracy (goliaths, orcs, and dwarves)
• The High Elves (elves and halflings)
• The Wood Elves (elves and gnomes)
• The Drow (elves)

Why do you think it's required that the nations need to only make sense for a 5E setting? You seem to be misunderstanding the goals. The goal is that each of these nations holds a place for the core races of the 5E setting. A 4E could for examle include Goliaths, but they aren't a PHB 1 species, so it would also be okay if they are missing. But a 5E setting needs a place for the Goliaths, because they are a core species in 5E.

And the same will apply to the classes - there needs to be patron entities that could work for the Warlock's pacts. If some Fighters can become Eldritch Knights, there might be some places where they are mentioned, maybe a military academy that has a teacher for combat magic, or a mercenary unit known for being lead by an Eldritch Knight.

There should be material that references this to provide guidelines and inspirations, pointers if you were to create your own core rule character on where they might fit in the setting (and also where or how they might feel unusual, if you wish to go against the grain).

 

[Corinnguard]

I don't think you believe there is a difference between "converted to with in base x edition" and "built for base x edition".

A setting contains the written lore. The PHB, DMG and MM contains the written game mechanics.

When you go from one edition to the next, you are going to see more changes to the latter than the former as particular game mechanics are revised, discarded or added in the hopes that everyone will like the new edition. The only change a setting might get is a time skip where the new edition is set X years into the setting's future. The 5.5e setting for the FR is supposedly 10 years ahead in time compared to the 5e FR setting. I think the time skip between the 4e FR and the 5e FR was about 100 years.

 

[Minigiant]

Why do you think it's required that the nations need to only make sense for a 5E setting? You seem to be misunderstanding the goals. The goal is that each of these nations holds a place for the core races of the 5E setting. A 4E could for examle include Goliaths, but they aren't a PHB 1 species, so it would also be okay if they are missing. But a 5E setting needs a place for the Goliaths, because they are a core species in 5E.

And the same will apply to the classes - there needs to be patron entities that could work for the Warlock's pacts. If some Fighters can become Eldritch Knights, there might be some places where they are mentioned, maybe a military academy that has a teacher for combat magic, or a mercenary unit known for being lead by an Eldritch Knight.

There should be material that references this to provide guidelines and inspirations, pointers if you were to create your own core rule character on where they might fit in the setting (and also where or how they might feel unusual, if you wish to go against the grain).

The nations don't need to be created.

The point is when the setting is written, the world builder ponders how the edition aspects fit in the world.

Not after the setting is created, is the writer trying to morph the setting to match the edition.

 

[Yaarel]

The point is when the setting is written, the world builder ponders how the edition aspects fit in the world.

Not after the setting is created, is the writer trying to morph the setting to match the edition.

One can design a setting that is rules agnostic.

But it also possible to tweak rules for the tropes of the setting.

Examples.

If I design a superhero setting, I would at least add a new class that uses magic by means of simpler mechanics at the higher levels. I would probably switch every core caster class to spell points instead of slots.

Players who want a realistic or gritty setting might cap the advancement at level 8. They might have reaching zero hit points trigger a level of exhaustion to represent a nonsuperficial wound, and alter resting so healing takes 2d6 days or 2d6 weeks depending on the nature of the injury.

Even for a typical setting I create new backgrounds and add new spells to cover certain concepts.

I see narrative and mechanics as a feedback loop.

 

[Minigiant]

One can design a setting that is rules agnostic.

But it also possible to tweak rules for the tropes of the setting.

Examples.

If I design a superhero setting, I would at least add a new class that uses magic by means of simpler mechanics at the higher levels. I would probably switch every core caster class to spell points instead of slots.

Players who want a realistic or gritty setting might cap the advancement at level 8. They might have reaching zero hit points trigger a level of exhaustion to represent a nonsuperficial wound, and alter resting so healing takes 2d6 days or 2d6 weeks depending on the nature of the injury.

Even for a typical setting I create new backgrounds and add new spells to cover certain concepts.

I see narrative and mechanics as a feedback loop.

(slaps forehead).

I'm not saying you have to design every setting a certain way.

What I am saying is if you are the IP holder of a game and you make another version of that game making significant changes to the mechanics and options of their game you should make at least one setting for that game with those options and mechanics were pondered while the setting was being crafted for sale.

For example if I made a game about vampires and then I later update the game with an inclusion of werewolf I should create at least one optional setting that either explains the new inclusions of werewolves into the setting or was designed as if the vampires and werewolves were both there existing when the setting was created.

 

[Corinnguard]

What I am saying is if you are the IP holder of a game and you make another version of that game making significant changes to the mechanics and options of their game you should make at least one setting for that game with those options and mechanics were pondered while the setting was being crafted for sale.

If you were the IP holder of a game and you decided to make a new setting using the newly updated mechanics and options of that game, would you be certain that your new setting would earn you a profit that makes up for the time and effort you just spent making it? Updating/converting an older and more popular setting such as the Forgotten Realms or Eberron might not cost you as much as a new setting would.

What's in it for WoTC to make a new setting for a new edition?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For example if I made a game about vampires and then I later update the game with an inclusion of werewolf I should create at least one optional setting that either explains the new inclusions of werewolves into the setting or was designed as if the vampires and werewolves were both there existing when the setting was created

Any setting with vampires is also assumed to have werewolves by default. Just because there were no previous rules for werewolves did mean there where none, just that they where sir-not-appearing-in-this-movie.

 

[Minigiant]

If you were the IP holder of a game and you decided to make a new setting using the newly updated mechanics and options of that game, would you be certain that your new setting would earn you a profit that makes up for the time and effort you just spent making it? Updating/converting an older and more popular setting such as the Forgotten Realms or Eberron might not cost you as much as a new setting would.

What's in it for WoTC to make a new setting for a new edition?

I think updating or converting an old setting well would cost the same as creating a new one.

If you halfway do it, it's a lot cheaper.

That's the issue right there.

 

[Corinnguard]

If you halfway do it, it's a lot cheaper.

Considering that 5.5e isn't too different from 5e, WoTC went half of the way instead of all of the way like they did when they made 4e.