D&D 5E 5e Core Assumptions vs. Setting Specific Assumptions

[teitan]

If they are advancing the the FR timeline a class like artificer could fit in rather nicely. I played a dwarven artificer once in 3.5 and it was a lot of fun. Haven't checked out the 4e version though as I just got into it. I loved Eberron when it came out. Bringing more steampunk to FR as a natural evolution of the timeline and expansion of Halruaa would be perfectly organic as a growth of the setting.

 

[Dausuul]

If they are advancing the the FR timeline a class like artificer could fit in rather nicely. I played a dwarven artificer once in 3.5 and it was a lot of fun. Haven't checked out the 4e version though as I just got into it. I loved Eberron when it came out. Bringing more steampunk to FR as a natural evolution of the timeline and expansion of Halruaa would be perfectly organic as a growth of the setting.

I don't play in or run games in the Forgotten Realms, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but in general I think it's a serious mistake to "advance the timeline" of any setting. I strongly disapprove of metaplot. Settings should be presented as static baselines upon which individual DMs can build their own story arcs, without worrying that later setting material will be unusable because it changes that baseline. And when you start messing around with the theme and tone of a setting, you risk pushing away the current fans of that setting. Why do you think the Spellplague went over like a lead balloon?

The Realms have long been the most popular D&D setting around. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Alignments: Clearly define them. TVTropes and even Palladium did a very good job. Goes doubly for paladins. (The list of 10 "lawful good" traits in Palladium looks like the paladin code. Ironically Palladium paladins can be "neutral good". But that's not relevant. What's relevant is is someone likes 8 or 9 parts of the lawful good code, there's room for constructive agreement. You can agree or disagree point by point.

Races: Only keep core popular races that have been in most or all edition PH1s. Gnomes and half-orcs are fairly marginal, and don't need to make the list. Same with tieflings and dragonborn. Halflings, humans, elves and dwarves are always in style, it seems.

Planes: Broad-brush only. It's okay to say fiends are from the "lower planes", but there's no need for info that will either support or conflict with Planescape, Great Wheel, Great Tree, or whatever. You only really need, defined, Astral, Ethereal and Shadow. You don't even need to say whether elemental planes are lower planes or not, as that's campaign-dependent.

 

[teitan]

I don't play in or run games in the Forgotten Realms, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but in general I think it's a serious mistake to "advance the timeline" of any setting. I strongly disapprove of metaplot. Settings should be presented as static baselines upon which individual DMs can build their own story arcs, without worrying that later setting material will be unusable because it changes that baseline. And when you start messing around with the theme and tone of a setting, you risk pushing away the current fans of that setting. Why do you think the Spellplague went over like a lead balloon?

The Realms have long been the most popular D&D setting around. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

I agree, I'd rather they go back to 1e or 3e timeline myself but if they have to advance it I'd like to see those elements I posted because advancing the timeline with no real change in what is essentially a pre-rennessaince timeline destroys verisimilitude for me. If the setting stays static and people aren't inventing etc as a result of these disasters with the magic available to them then it's a stagnate setting even with all the changes that occur.

 

[Li Shenron]

My preferences would be as follow:

- generally speaking, no default setting, and only the most iconic and generic setting assumptions

- RACES: only wholly mortal, non-alignment biased, non-mechanically awkward (including level adjustment) and as much humanoid as possible races in the core: humans, elves, dwarves and halflings are must-have; half-elves, half-orcs and gnomes I prefer not but aren't a big deal; drow, orcs, hobgoblins are nice to play but I would not like them in the first PHB because of their alignment complications (but in the DMG might have a place); no undead, planetouched, genasi and other outsiders as core playable races, because of their complications on not being exactly mortals, their lives work differently; no lycanthropes or other shapechangers because of their mechanical complications; no dragonborn, warforged or other weirdos [clearly ALL these can be playable races in supplements, just not in core or at least not in PHB]

- CLASSES: only traditional classes the concept of which is common enough and large enough for plenty of character variations; I would prefer no oriental classes (e.g. Monk)

- EQUIPMENT: only middle-ages or early renaissance mundane equipment and technology

- MONSTERS: as long as the (many) iconic and most traditional monsters are in the first MM, I am not so worried here, since the DM has full direct control over what goes into her game

- RELIGIONS: I like the "placeholder deities" a lot, this is the best solution I've seen so far in D&D, I just hope we can get more than these in the PHB; I do not want a specific setting's pantheon to be default, I do not want a "best of" mix from multiple settings, I do not want a new pantheon for 5e

- ALIGNMENT: as long as it's optional, they can put the traditional 3x3 alignment; I would prefer that there be alternative also presented, but not just based on removing some combination from the 3x3, but rather something else entirely; for example, it would be nice if they presented a (simple) honor-based alignment system like in OA/Rokugan, and also they could present the M:tG 5-colour alignment system as a possibility (since they also own the M:tG brand, I guess it should be possible)

- THE PLANES: as much as I love planar adventures, avoid at all costs to assume a certain cosmology in core; spells such as "Astral Projection", "Etherealness", "Plane Shift", "Gate" etc. can all work without needing to explain the how and why exactly they work the way they do... it's magic, and all the players need to know from core is the effect of those spells, leave the details to a Manual of the Planes supplement

 

[MichaelSomething]

Because it doesn't need to. Or rather, if it does, it only needs to say it once.

A lot of people don't get it with just implying. Stating something clearly and strongly helps to ensure it's communicated.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I didn't like how everything in 4e is considered "core". It dilutes the difference between the different settings and make them all more bland. I basically agree with [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] on all his points about what should be core and not. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with having the setting specific races IN the books, they should just be marked as more optional than the others.