Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6136115" data-attributes="member: 92511">Since the yugoloth/planescape lore threads have gotten, oooo, a titch tangential...I thought I'd start this up, to see what people like/want as core assumptions in the 5e iteration of Dungeons & Dragons.I know, the answer for many will be "anything 4e" or "all things Planescape" or "whatever Forgotten Realms say"...and that's all fine and legitimate...but I'm looking for more specific/detailed things.Do understand, this is all entirely subjective. It's about what you like! Not about what you DON'T like other people saying. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" />See the difference? There are no wrong answers. So, please, don't start arguing with someone's post and how/why you or your preferred settings are right and others preferences are wrong. Just curious about an array of people's specific preferences.For example:1) Kender as a core pc race option doesn't work for me. That's a core assumption for the Dragonlance setting. This goes for pirate/sailor nation of minotaurs, as well.Halflings, themselves, seem to be on course, as they have them now: hairfoot [if you want barefoot hobbit-esque, or are the playtests calling them "stouts"?] or lightfoot [if you want skinny halflings with shoes]...I don't like them. But I don't see a reason for them not to be in. I go for a combination, myself: fit and trim but no shoes/hairy feet.1a) DROW as a pc race option out the gate, doesn't work for me. As a pc race option EVER doesn't actually work for me, but I know perfectly well I'm fairly on my own with that. Offering them in some supplemental or as a pc option in Eberron or FR setting book, fine. Not a core 5e assumption though. Which it doesn't seem to be...so that's good for me.1b) Warforged are an Eberron creation. They belong in the Eberron material/setting book. IF they go into the Monster Manual, their flavor text needs to make clear they are from/for the Eberron setting..."but you can use 'em if you want." I prefer not even that, that they not be a core assumption outside of that setting.Artificers, also, if I had my way. Your "magic machinery" and "steampunkery" doesn't belong in the default D&D assumptions. Just as firearms and cowboys or ray guns and robots or 20's style gangsters and g-men don't belong in the default of the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy genre-defining game. 1c) Thri-kreen and "muls" are in the same boat as kenders and warforged. They are created as pc's for Dark Sun. They belong, in those materials, not the core books. Thri-kreen listed in the Monster Manual...as monsters (like minotaurs) are fine. Their lore might even have a final sentence saying they are an possible PC race "in the Dark Sun campaign setting", as a line under minotaurs could go for Dragonlance...but their setting specific stats or lore should not be presented in the MM but in the relevant campaign setting material. If you want to use them as such, and don't want to purchase the specific setting material, make it up! 1d-z) Same goes for whatever funky Spelljammer, Planescape, and any other D&D-owned-campaign-setting-that-I'm-forgetting-or-unaware-of specific races are out there (I certainly don't know/can't name them all).2) The 4e Eladrin. Die in a fire. Call them High [or more accurately "Grey"] elves again/as they always were. Let the "eladrin" go back to being the extraplanar cosmic elf-things that players/games in extraplanar spaces seem to have loved so much. Of all the crazy, cool, silly and outright ridiculous things in 30+ years of D&D, they seem to be my "knee-jerk top of the pet peeve list" thing. Dunnno why. Just are.3) The DMG needs [and I can't imagine won't have] a planar appendix. It should include the following along with ideas/guidelines of HOW to include them in your campaign:Option 1) traditional 1e explanation/diagramsOption 2) 4e style "World Axis" explanation/diagrams, Feywild, ShadowfellOption 3) "Planescape" introduction [from what little I know of it, start with Sigil, I'd imagine] like "Boot Hill" or "Gamma World" were in the 1e DMG. Planescape as a "meta-setting" that defaults assumptions for all D&D worlds needs to stop. The PS fans can use the PS stuff, have it over reach into all other settings to their hearts' content. The default D&D rulebooks should offer it as an option, along with everything else.Option 4) Make yer own/Do what you want! With suggestions of how to do that exactly...and/or Option 5) some basic "heaven-good place/middle/"hell-bad place" setup...4) The PHB and DMG, both, should offer/explain and describe 4 alignment options: whether you use 9, 5, 3 or no alignments in your game is a table-by-table choice. 5) [As suggested with "artificers" above] What I said about setting-specific races goes for setting-specific classes as well, whatever they are/wherever they're from, they belong in those setting-specific materials. 6) I think the racial list is doing ok...But I would like to see a few human diversity, "sub-races" I guess 5e is calling them. At the bare minimum, following the 2 sub-race per demi-human system they seem to be going with for now: a "barbarian/tribal" sub-race and a "civilized/city-folk" sub-race...dunno what you'd call that..."imperialist" or maybe just "citizen"?...sumthin' like that. With the understanding that a traditional "commoner/artisan/merchant/noble medieval-esque folk" is the default for human pc's but you could choose from these culture-specific possibilities instead. That's all that's coming to mind at the moment...What're your preferences?</blockquote>

Verification