I know, its to make it all as generic and non-setting specific as possible, I get it.It many settings, a dragonborn not knowing Draconic could be totally normal, or at least totally understandable - unless dragonborn (and other races?) learn their "racial" language via some kind of magic or hivemind.
Sorry, but if some people are allowed to push some ideas into the community,
I don't see why I should restrain from telling them that these ideas can also irritate other members of said community.
I think it is an improvement. For example, format allows the gith lineage to make githyanki and githzerai very different from each other. It allows the wood elf and the astral elf to be very different from each other.I mean, this is an improvement?
I think it is an improvement. For example, format allows the gith lineage to make githyanki and githzerai very different from each other. It allows the wood elf and the astral elf to be very different from each other.
Setting-agnostic seems true for race design.I know, its to make it all as generic and non-setting specific as possible, I get it.
Yeah I'm not really concerned about stat blocks, those are going to be adventure dependent, or derived from the needs of building encounters.
I dont believe that would align well with the setting agnostic approach they seem to be leaning into.Simply adding "faction" to the statblock format, is flavorful for an adventure setting. There can be orc factions that are "typically Evil". But these factions might include ogres and humans too. It also reminds the reader that most orcs arent members of the specific faction.
In Witchlight, the "bullywug knight" is cultural and setting specific.I dont believe that would align well with the setting agnostic approach they seem to be leaning into.
While this may be true (I bought Fizban instead of Witchlight last night) how can you have a generic monster book, if its impossible to remove the setting from stat blocks?In Witchlight, the "bullywug knight" is cultural and setting specific.
It seems impossible to remove setting from monster statblocks.
It makes more sense to embrace statblocks as a DM setting-building tool.
Personally, I think there is no such thing as a "generic monster book". At best, it is a menu that a DM can pick-and-choose from.While this may be true (I bought Fizban instead of Witchlight last night) how can you have a generic monster book, if its impossible to remove the setting from stat blocks?
You know why. Humans and humanlike creatures have free will can be members of any culture.And if its impossible for 'faceless' monsters to be setting agnostic, why is it seemingly required for player races to be divorced from setting?
The assumption that they are "removing culture" has no support. What they have done with Tasha's is allow culture-based aspects like weapon/skill training to be more flexible to match different cultures. This is very much like the PHB drow having different weapon proficiencies - a long standing part of the game, but now opening up to more settings and homebrew.Do you actually think they will be?
Are Gem Dragonborn 'very different' from Chromatic Dragonborn?
2 or 3 rules. Thats it.
I mean lets crack open MToF.
First, we remove what is no longer distinct. Remember we cannot assume culture, setting, location anymore.
ASI
Alignment
Age
Size
Speed
Language
Then we get
Githyanki
Decadent Mastery (Locational, this could easily be gone)
Martial Prodigy (Cultural, this is gone probably)
Githyanki Psionics - Maybe we get to keep this.
Githzerai
Mental Discipline (Cultural, why assume all learn from monastic masters...)
Githzerai Psionics - Maybe we get to keep this.
Thats your templated, 'non setting' generic Gith. 2 slightly differentpsionicspell lists.
They COULD do that, but they wont.Personally, I think there is no such thing as a "generic monster book". At best, it is a menu that a DM can pick-and-choose from.
The socalled "core" Monster Manual feels more like a "Forgotten Realms Bestiary". To be fair, 5e Forgotten Realms is a fusion of old FR, Greyhawk, Planescape, and even 4e World Axis cosmology.
But FR, Eberron, Dark Sun, can easily have separate Monster Manuals.
Even when a bestiary designs a statblock for the context of a specific setting, each bestiary can encourage the DM to borrow freely from the bestiaries of other settings as well.
Perhaps relocate all Celestials and Fiends from the Monster Manual, to a Planescape or similar astral setting.
My position on 'balance' in the game remains unmoved. That is to say, its a non-issue in Wizards eyes.Though personally I would find it more interesting if they split culture off from race. So you could end up with a halfling trained by githzerai monastic masters, a half-elf who grew up among this elven culture vs. another who grew up among this metropolitan culture. But that requires re-balancing, I wouldn't expect that anytime soon.
I find the use of "lineage" brilliant, because depending on context, it can be synonymous with "species", "race", "ancestry", "bloodline", "ethnicity", "family", "heritage", "kinship", as much from a genetic baggage than from a cultural heritage perspective. Basically it means "these are my forefathers", whomever they were. I liked "race" but if we're going to replace it, "lineage" is the best replacement because it's a very malleable term. And it remains medieval-ish enough not to burst my fantasy bubble.As far as I can tell, the terms "lineage" and "species" mean the same thing. Probably the designers chose lineage for the D&D technical jargon, because of its flavorful connotation of medieval values about aristocratic pedigree. The connotation of species might have felt too scientific and modern for them. But they reuse the term lineage to mean species anyway.
It is worth mentioning, a lineage implies an ability to reproduce offspring. But there can be various methods of reproduction.
The dragonborn lineage came into existence by magically transforming an embryonic dragon egg. Since then the dragonborn can reproduce sexually. But they can also reproduce asexually. Fizbans gives a certain Draconic Gift, called Draconic Rebirth, that magically transforms a player character into the dragonborn lineage, thus replacing player character racial features with dragonborn racial features. Thereby, a dragonborn is reproduced asexually.
There is still going to be a Monster Manual, come 5.5 right? That's going to have your 'default' stat blocks.
Backgrounds can define a culture. By analogy, if a Background is like a card, then a culture is like hand with four to ten cards.Though personally I would find it more interesting if they split culture off from race. So you could end up with a halfling trained by githzerai monastic masters, a half-elf who grew up among this elven culture vs. another who grew up among this metropolitan culture. But that requires re-balancing, I wouldn't expect that anytime soon.
I think you would see a lot of unnecessary duplication with this approach, much like we see in the Fizban's book for Dragonborn, but even worse as the stat blocks take up a lot of space by their nature alone.With regard to "50e" (50th Anniversary Edition), there is benefit to dividing the Monster Manual up by plane (Astral-Celestial-Fiend-Farrealms, Ethereal-Elemental-Fey-Shadow), and planet (Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Darksun, Greyhawk, Dragonlance).
Explicitly mentioning the setting of the bestiary makes the setting more flavorful.
Consider the entries in the 2014 Players Handbook that are all encounters in the Forgotten Realms setting. Certain entries can update for Forgotten Realms as something like:
Orc
Humanoid, any alignment
Eye of Gruumsh
Gruumsh faction: mainly orcs, typically Chaotic Evil
Gruumsh Warchief
Gruumsh faction: mainly orcs, typically Chaotic Evil
Manyarrows Noble
Manyarrows monarchy: mainly orcs, Spine of World Mountains, any alignment
Orog
Luthic faction: orcs, ogres, humans, and others, typically Chaotic Evil
It occurs to me, an elven faction might include both Fey and Humanoid, so faction, location, and alignment might need to separate from Size and Type.