D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The reason we don't have the 2e style one in 5e is because everyone is supposed to have the same XP.
Which in itself is sad.
The thing people tend to ignore in all this is that the game has become less and less combat focused over time. AD&D was pretty much all combat all the time. Why wouldn't you? Killing stuff netted treasure and that netted you xp. I've never understood this story that gets put out that AD&D wasn't about clear cutting the dungeon and stripping it down to the paint. Why would you ever leave a monster if you had the choice?
You're doing 1e a disservice here. In 1e defeating a monster got you xp, but defeating it didn't necessarily mean killing it. Avoiding it, parlaying with it, tricking it, charming it into your party - all of these got you the "defeat" xp; or should have if the DM was paying attention to the DMG.

Further, if your game was using xp-for-gp (many didn't) and your PCs were at all diligent about searching for the loot, the gold-given xp outweighed the monster-given xp by at least a 3-1 ratio and sometimes as high as 10-1. There's some ancient threads in here started by @Quasqueton where this analysis is presented (sometimes in excruciating detail!).
2e tried to become more about "story" but it was clumsily done and tended to lean very much on the heavy handedness of AD&D resulting in all sorts of problems. If your DM is "Always right!" then you can never complain about railroading and being sidelined. :erm:
2e is where combat took over as xp-for-treasure was, in practice, gone.
3e spent some time trying to award xp for non-combat, but, it was mostly lip service and the adventures certainly didn't push in a non-violent direction. 4e was really the first honest attempt at trying to make a viable D&D game where you actually didn't have to kill anything. Heck, every single PC in 4e could, after something hit bloodied, end the fight with a single skill check. At least in 5e, you can declare that you're not killing something after you've done damage and put it down.
Even 1e had a hit-to-subdue option; originally intended for use specifically against Dragons but often* extended to be useable against any living foe with a discernable anatomy. The difference in 1e, and personally I think it's better than how 5e does it, is that you declare you're striking to subdue before your attack rather than after the fact.

* - not sure if this was ever made "official" by the TSR gurus; though I've a feeling it might have been.
 


There's no good reason why high and wood elves need different stats; after all, forest-dwelling humans and city-dwelling humans don't have them. There's no good reason why mountain and hill dwarfs have different stats, either. But in D&D, culture = (sub)race = different traits and abilities.
I think the original concept of different stats was - "as compared to humans." I could be wrong, and anyone out there, feel free to correct me. But I swear when we started, that is how we viewed it. It believe it was the same for Gamma World too.
 

Which is what I was talking about. Because they have always conflated race with culture, it's why they insist on creating new types of drow rather than just saying that this group of drow is like A and that group of drow is like B.
No doubt that in the next edition or even 5.5 that will be the objective. Then, I guess, people will have nothing to argue about. ;)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Indeed. Dwarf+Elf and Orc+Dwarf and Orc+Elf once just did not work because their gods were at odds or outright hostile toward each other
Indeed.

Yet Humans can interbreed with both Orcs and Elves (to give Half-Orcs and Half-Elves); and the question then becomes whether Half-Orcs and Half-Elves can interbreed with each other. If yes, it'd become very possible to have a mostly-Human individual showing elements of both Elf and Orc ancestry...and when you take this idea and expand it to include all the other what-can-reproduce-with-what scenarios in fantasy (including deities reproducing with mortals), things get interesting in a hurry.
 

I dont know how they're going to address this. Addressing the race issue properly would require an overhaul of the system, which would require a new or substantially modified edition. Making that update to a game that is extremely popular (and continues to grow more so) is usually not good business sense.
They have already addressed it. The have already built the dirt road, and soon enough it will be paved.

Attributes, skills, etc. are cultural. They said so, even if some feel it was disingenuous to the original writing or intent of writing. So they will have this world's culture, or this realm's culture or this place's culture, and that world's culture, that realm's culture, etc. On one elves will blend into the forest. On another, they will receive spell benefits. On another they will gain divine abilities. All of this will be able to skirt the issue, and publish a boatload of player-based books, which just so happen to sell more than their adventures.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Also consider that our fantasy worlds do not clearly operate under the forces of Darwinian evolution at all.
What makes you say that?

I see the fantasy-world creature collection as Darwin dialed to eleven, with fewer mass-extinction events and more species capable of sustaining their own place in the pattern.
 

I agree interesting racial features could exist (look at the warforged). They're just rare. Most everything's either cultural or boring.
A discussion that reminds me of the Yes song, Roundabout. ;)

The real issue is you only have so many things to work with, and inevitably, if you also want balance, you can only tweak so many things. (And there are very few things to tweak!) At one time, I asked for a list. I think there was a total of 16 or 18. That's it. Could you come up with more. Maybe. Will it suddenly let one race favor a specific class - absolutely!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top