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

[Remathilis]

Indeed.

The unspoken hidden aspect of 2024th edition is that monsters can swap weapons and spell as long as the attack is calculated at the same CR.

For as long as the dragonborn's breath weapon, elf or tiefling's cantrip, or the goliaths ancestry attack is around the same DPR, it's balanced.

Versatility adjusts Strategy but not Power level.

As long as the math still maths.

 

[Parmandur]

Which is why we should have a 2024 D&D setting. One that's built from the ground up incorporating the assumptions of the rules.

We are over a hundred pages in. What are these supposed rules assumptions that impact workd design...? A Humanocentric world and a hypercosmopolitan one seem equal under the 2024 rules as written.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One that's built from the ground up incorporating the assumptions of the rules

The assumption of the rules is that the setting is independent of the rules. And that is achieved by assuming player characters are exceptional and what they can do (and what they look like) does not reflect the rest of the population.

 

[Parmandur]

The assumption of the rules is that the setting is independent of the rules. And that is achieved by assuming player characters are exceptional and what they can do (and what they look like) does not reflect the rest of the population.

Unless you want it to: one could use 3.5 DMG demograpbic generators in 5E, if one so desired. Rules don't care either way.

 

[Yaarel]

The key to 24 Human success is flexibility and adaptability, able to radiate into new areas and reconsolidate bases there. Humans are more expansionist than other species. The main limit of Human is the need for illumination - above ground and during daylight hours.

Elf adapts more slowly tending to entrench within an environmental niche, albeit the magic itself is a versatile pursuit, encouraging sophisticated specializations where they do take root.

Dragonborn lean toward hunting and combat, and the energy resistance can thrive in a specific harsh environment that Human tend to avoid unless with adaptive technology.

 

[SkidAce]

You could just as easily write a campaign where the rules reflect humans being expansionistic and exploitive (overall, not individuals per se).

Humans have an extra feat because they take advantage of everything to their benefit.

That's just as valid for a 2024 rules setting as any other reason, so for me much of this convo of basing a 5.5 campaign on its "assumptions" is kinda irrelevant because you can have the rules/assumptions be valid for any reason you want.

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding Greyhawk. The Dragon Magazine map of planet Oerth is official, in the sense that it appears in the 3e Living Greyhawk Gazetteer.

On the other hand, the Oerth map itself is presented by an unreliable narrator, and if a "medieval map" might include significant spatial distortions of size and rotation.

The farther from Flanaess, the more a future official map can redraw the map, if necessary. When the Oerth map came out, it got mixed reviews (love and hate). So today an actual world map for D&D 24 would do well to go thru a UA feedback check.

In any case, Dragons Island is right in the edge of the known world of Flanaess, and part of the area for a Dragonborn civilization can even be seen. The location of Dragons Island is secure, and it is a large landmass. There can be diverse Dragonborn cultures, including multispecies cultures.

This thread calls for a "new setting" to be more inclusive of the Dragonborn. But this doesnt necessarily require a new planet, a new world setting. It can be a new regional setting that earlier products had not elaborated yet. Namely, Dragons Island.

There is a Dragonborn population in Ket, evidencing the Dragonborn include mercantile cultures following the land traderoutes. Additionally they probably have significant naval cultures as well, following sea traderoutes, albeit these are more distant, needing to circumnavigate the Zindia subcontinent before reaching Flanaess.

 

[Remathilis]

But, 2024 D&D doesn't have those restrictions. And it shows and has been showing since 3e removed all those restrictions. When you start reading older setting material, you can see example after example that don't make a lot of sense with 3e onwards mechanics in place but make perfect sense in AD&D.

Which is why we should have a 2024 D&D setting. One that's built from the ground up incorporating the assumptions of the rules. If that means that humans get pushed off to the side, then so be it. Maybe humans fit into the setting as the diplomatic species. They are the go betweens between various stronger powers. Maybe the human nations focus on trading instead of colonization. I dunno. Whatever floats your boat. But, as it stands, the older settings make less and less sense as time moves on because the assumptions that were made going into designing those settings don't make any sense anymore.

Eberron was designed after AD&D with the racial assumptions of 3e (any class, any race). They have racial nations for every race in the 3e PHB. Hell, they have nations for goblinoids, orcs, and the other monstrous types. It lacks a defined nation for aasimar, tieflings, dragonborn and goliaths (all were not PHB races at the time) but even then each has found a reasonable home. (It helps they are tied to angels, demons, dragons and giants respectively and thus can slot in to the areas where those creatures hold sway).

Yet with all of that, would you still not say Eberron is humanocentric? Galifar was a human-lead empire. The Last War was about human succession. Humans have the largest share of the dragonmarks. Out of the thirteen nations on Khorvaire, humans are prevalent in seven of them (and were in eight until the Mourning). Plus the whole continent of Sarlona is human (well, was human).

Even if you reshuffled Eberron somewhat to give newer races more prevalence (dragonborn rule Q'barra, tieflings the Demon Wastes, etc) I don't know if you would completely escape the trajectory of humancentricism. Honestly, I would wage most serious attempts to create a 2024 setting would end up with something akin to Eberron demographics (plus or minus for the species shifts) regardless.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Humans dare to inhabit an area where there is an earthquake or a volcanic eruption every century. They have shorter lives, but you're more willing to take risks.

If players like to use house rules then the settings shouldn't be too linked to rules.

A setting has to be designed to be the source of inspiration of new stories with the characters created by you.

Today it is not only competing with 3PPs or other titles by other publishers but multigenre franchises where you can know freely the lore thanks fandom wikis.

A right worldbuilding needs a lot of time.