Search results

Well, yes. It is D&D. What I'm proposing here is about as reductive as classes or saving throws. In my opinion, if a similar approach works for the Civilization video games, there's no reason why it couldn't work in a role playing game like D&D.

It wouldn’t be completely absurd to define broad cultural profiles: rural culture, imperialistic culture, builder culture, warmongering culture, artistic culture, utopian culture, scholar culture, etc.

It's not a bad suggestion, but is that really a "vision of the high level fighter"?

Introducing optional racial levels, like in Arcana Unearthed, would be interesting. For example, a dwarf character could add a couple of racial levels to become a more "iconic" version of the dwarf, enhancing things the species is already good at, making her tougher, adding tremorsense, etc...

Making the Neighborhood Safer: Fighters should know everything about the best ways to secure a place. With only a couple of recommandations, they can make a room, a house, or a whole village safer, making it more difficult for their opponents to move, act or attack. Badass Boast: "I am Kangar...

Yes. In D&D terms, he levelled up, just like BMX Bandit.

The problem is that, while BMX Bandit is trying to find a way to solve the problem through mundane means, Angel Summoner can just summon a horde of divine beings and deal with it in no time.

Then what does "everyone is equal" even means if it does not mean that everyone is actually equal?

The same could be said of the word "race", that many people here find problematic. If we want to get rid of one of them because of the connotations and the potential misuse if the word, it would be absurd to keep the other.

The game would become more inclusive if the Game Master were renamed "Game Manager" and if monsters were called "creatures".

It doesn't. Now let's be serious: taking care of the big things does not prevent anyone from caring about the small things.

Yes, as you point out, calling these creatures "monsters" is an old tradition. In my opinion, though, old traditions sometimes are oppressive, and need to be re-examined objectively from time to time. For example, lots of people feel nowadays that describing Orcs as intrinsically evil creatures...

No reason why you couldn't change that name AND fight climate change at the same time. It's not as if changing that name would prevent you from doing more important things.

Fair enough. Care to explain why ? Is it because you feel that the creatures included in the book really are best described as "monsters"? Is it because of tradition?

I realize that this may look like a parody thread. It is not. I'm completely serious. I'm still on the fence about whether or not sterotyping in D&D is akin to real-world stereotyping, I've heard good points from both sides. But if it is, I think we should remove it completely from the game, and...

If we're serious about getting rid of stereotyping and othering in Dungeons & Dragons, I think it's time to act on one of the worst offenders: the Monster Manual. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong per se about a book which lists opponents and adversaries. But let's call it what it is: a...

Changing the way races/species work mechanically doesn't change solve anything about the way the game conveys outdated stereotypes, or it only does in the most hypocritical way. Whether you remove racial modificators or not, there are still Orcs out there who are, on average, stronger than...

Thematically, I just can’t see how the game can sustain a Paladin class and a Knight class. They seem very similar to me, and I’d rather have a Knight subclass.

In Arcana Unearthed, every race was a prestige class as well.