D&D 5E D&D Studio Blog - Sage Advice - Creature Evolutions

There's a new D&D Studio Blog - Jeremy's posted about "Creature Evolutions": Creature Evolutions | Dungeons & Dragons

Some quick takeaways:

• Some creatures that were formerly humanoids will, going forward, be monstrosities, fey, or something else. ("Humanoid" is reserved for creatures with similar "moral and cultural range" to humans.)
• Alignment got put in a "time out".
• They've started using class tags so that DMs know that a particular NPC can attune to magic items limited to a particular class.
• Bonus actions get their own section in the stat block now.
• They've merged the Innate Spellcasting and Spellcasting traits and have gotten rid of spell slots.

Also some stuff we've already guessed based on the stat blocks and playable races in Wild Beyond the Witchlight.

There's also some Sage Advice on "rabbit hops" for harengon PCs.

 

[Bolares]

I hope for racial languages they put something like "Typically dwarvish" for Dwarves, for example. I'd prefer some notation of what the culture typically produces. I don't want the game drifting more towards the 4e "everything in the rulebooks is just the toolbox mechanics and you decide the fluff" mode. Yes, I can change the fluff, but I prefer professional game designers provide some guidelines for implied setting to work from to begin with. If typical Dwarvish cultures produce Dwarves who speak Dwarvish, please note that's what's typical and then I can decide if this Dwarf is atypical or if I am changing that implied culture for my setting.

Is it enough for there to be a table on the languages section of the PHB telling us wich races typically speak wich languages?

 

[Mistwell]

Is it enough for there to be a table on the languages section of the PHB telling us wich races typically speak wich languages?

No because each racial entry in the PHB is extensive, with the overwhelming majority of the text being fluff, and that should include mention of languages. If they reduce races to a few mechanics instead of all that setting coverage for that race, it will become a hollow shell of the current PHB and read more like an Ikea instruction manual. Which I don't want.

 

[HammerMan]

Well they are not removing racial languages so that doesn't help with this issue. And "typical" means they are ALLOWED to have various cultural languages, right? If I tell you the typical person in Wyoming speaks English, does that imply to you that nobody in Wyoming speaks anything other than English, or that nobody in Wyoming speaks another language as their first language?

IF they really wanted to they would name languages NOT after races... Runic is the language of most dwarves and most giants, Feyus is spoken by most of the elves....

 

[Oofta]

IF they really wanted to they would name languages NOT after races... Runic is the language of most dwarves and most giants, Feyus is spoken by most of the elves....

Which might be okay for a specific campaign. Personally, calling the cultural language that the majority of dwarves speak "dwarvish" is more convenient. I don't have to remember what races speak "made up language name".

Everyone speaking common (or a racial language) is just one of the many, many over-simplifications the game makes. If we wanted a simulation, in many areas you wouldn't speak the same language after travelling a few days. Most people don't want the hassle because "realistic" does not necessarily equate to "fun".

 

[Scribe]

Is it enough for there to be a table on the languages section of the PHB telling us wich races typically speak wich languages?

Why would they provide this?

No because each racial entry in the PHB is extensive, with the overwhelming majority of the text being fluff, and that should include mention of languages. If they reduce races to a few mechanics instead of all that setting coverage for that race, it will become a hollow shell of the current PHB and read more like an Ikea instruction manual. Which I don't want.

Which is exactly the direction it's going.

Unless the new book provides a new setting a grab bag approach is always going to reinforce, or provide for issues which some will believe are a problem.

Or, they just lean in to 'there is no canon' and retcon everything.

If people really look at the races and where they sit in the setting D&D pushes as 'default', they run into questions wizards hasn't wanted to address.

New setting, retcons or 'whatever you like' race descriptions.

That's what I see as the end point.

 

[Bolares]

Why would they provide this?

Don't they already do this?

Edit: they do. The player Handbook has a table that describes the typicall speakers and the script of every major language.

 

[Scribe]

Don't they already do this?

Hmmm I would have to look after work.

I don't think they will continue though.

The intent is to leave it all in the DM or (ideally) players hands to choose.

Wizards doesn't want to appear to be endorsing or pushing any kind of definition on the players that could be in any way even implied to be a limitation.

After all, Monsters have ALWAYS been able to be changed in terms of Alignment.

Not good enough though was it? No, must add 'Typically' and 'Any' because otherwise Wizards is stating that the essence of a race is inherently tied to its biology. Or something.

Reality was, it could always be changed.

The Age thing is curious, but ultimately you distil it all down to.

Aasimar: 3 or 4 Rules.
Everything else: Player or DM defined.

 

[Bolares]

I don't think they will continue though.

I think they will continue to do it, because the table calls them "typical speakers" (or something like it). That gives you a north, but doesn't limit your choices.

 

[bedir than]

I never liked racial languages, afterall Humans dont speak Humanish. Humans are allowed to have various ‘cultural’ languages so why doesnt that apply to other races too?

Replace all languages with cultures, and things make a lot more sense.

Adding Culture to Your Game: A new tool

Get rid of languages; replace them with Culture: NAME.

fullmoonstorytelling.com

 

[Scribe]

I think they will continue to do it, because the table calls them "typical speakers" (or something like it). That gives you a north, but doesn't limit your choices.

Ah OK, I believe I misunderstood you.