Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 8593308" data-attributes="member: 7635">My reasoning for bringing up (2) is that the Wis/Con to AC could be seen as an extension of a wider topic of ability scores and ableism, which when mixed with the cultural issues (1) could create that sense of essentialism. Suffice to say, there are some arguments to be made with how ability scores interact with classes, but that's a topic far larger than what is broached. I bring it up because a divorce of primary ability scores from class would, in theory, fix the issue. Your idea of redoing Unarmored Defense to fix the MAD element of it is a good example of removing the emphasis of on ability score modifier in class features, the switch from Ability Score Mod/Day to Proficiency Bonus/Day is another. Onto (1). I think with issues of how both races and monsters have been viewed critically in the lens of perpetuating stereotypes (both positive and negative) I think class would be the natural next place to view. Monks and barbarians have for a while been the primary target such discussion, but I think we are going to see more scrutiny placed on the archetypes each class is made to invoke and ask if it is a.) inclusive enough and b.) perpetuating stereotypes. In particular, some classes that are generic to culture (fighter, wizard, rogue, sorcerer) or fairly generic (cleric, bard, ranger) will probably be unchanged, but I could see some major revision or reimagining of druid, monk, barbarian, paladin, and maybe warlock in order to make them less cultural and more generic. I don't know how that will shake out exactly, but I'd keep my eye on those 4-5 classes, along with many subclasses that are based on certain cultures (samurai or cavalier in particular.)I don't think either of these things are specifically on the menu for 2024, but I wouldn't be surprised if D&D doesn't start moving towards those changes, assuming the current level of popularity and scrutiny remain.</blockquote>

Verification