D&D (2024) Do you think they will add more races to PHB2024 to make up for dropping other stuff?

[FitzTheRuke]

Thanks for confirming my concerns that my post would be disregarded. Exactly how specific do I need to be to meet your rhetorical criteria?

I'm afraid that you seem to be doing what you're accusing the other poster of doing. They're not disregarding your post - they're asking you questions to further their understanding of your perspective. They might be sceptical, but they're the opposite of dismissive. Give them a chance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm afraid that you seem to be doing what you're accusing the other poster of doing. They're not disregarding your post - they're asking you questions to further their understanding of your perspective. They might be sceptical, but they're the opposite of dismissive. Give them a chance.

If they answer my question as to how specific they require me to be I'll consider it. Several people seem to understand what I was getting at as is.

 

[Scribe]

You still labor under the incorrect assumption that these aren't true breeding species (or in the warforged case, aren't created in a literal mass assembly line). Which is reductive nonsense. You might as well make tabaxi half-cats and aarakroca half-birds for all the sense it makes.

You might get some sympathetic support for planetouched races (aasimar, tieflng and genasi) but the rest are true breeding species and not half-breeds.

Right? If they wanted planetouched for other root/base/whatever origins, well those all existed before.

As it is, Aasimar/Tiefling/Genasi, had a human root, the rest are stand alone species.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If they answer my question as to how specific they require me to be I'll consider it. Several people seem to understand what I was getting at as is.

The people who understand you tend to be the people who share your views. When someone is sceptical, they don't tend to get what you're saying right off the bat. But someone who engages with you is likely trying to understand, rather than dismissing you out of hand. They very likely don't know how specific they need you to be, and probably don't really expect or want you to write them a novel. They've asked a few specific questions. Perhaps you could just start there?

I mean, I sort of get what you mean, and partly agree. But it wouldn't hurt to go a little deeper. I'd like to see you answer their questions.

I don't think the issue is quite as extreme as you appear to think, but that's pretty par for the course. WotC is trying to get through a LOT of material with very few books published per year, and very few pages allotted to each book. Given that, I think they could do better than they have with the depth of the lore, but I don't know if I'm right about that. It's very likely not as easy as it looks.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

The closet I could find was a suggestion it could be inspired by Persian.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The people who understand you tend to be the people who share your views. When someone is sceptical, they don't tend to get what you're saying right off the bat. But someone who engages with you is likely trying to understand, rather than dismissing you out of hand. They very likely don't know how specific they need you to be, and probably don't really expect or want you to write them a novel. They've asked a few specific questions. Perhaps you could just start there?

I mean, I sort of get what you mean, and partly agree. But it wouldn't hurt to go a little deeper. I'd like to see you answer their questions.

I don't think the issue is quite as extreme as you appear to think, but that's pretty par for the course. WotC is trying to get through a LOT of material with very few books published per year, and very few pages allotted to each book. Given that, I think they could do better than they have with the depth of the lore, but I don't know if I'm right about that. It's very likely not as easy as it looks.

My biggest issue is changing the past with regards to lore. If you don't have a lot of space, I'm fine with leaving things out and perhaps painting with broad strokes in some areas. I encourage adding details where few or none exist, or advancing the timeline to allow for new material. Make an honest attempt at least. But if you feel you need to make major changes to a setting in order to meet the current IP holder's agenda, then IMO you need to start over with a new setting and a new story. To do otherwise is to do a disservice to the work of your predacessors, and a sign of disrespect.

It doesn't matter if people like what you came up with. Rewriting an existing setting is wrong IMO. Express your creativity and tell a different story.

 

[Corinnguard]

So when D&D got all skittish about religion in 2e, they renamed several outer planar beings. We know any demons (tanar'ri), devils (baatezu) and daemons (yugoloths) but angels also got renamed to aasimon. Aasimar are derived from that.

It's a very obscure bit of Planescape lore.

I remember the demons being called tanar'ri, the devils being called baatezu and the daemons being called yugoloths. I actually liked the name change for these three. But I had forgotten that angels received the same name treatment. Weird.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My biggest issue is changing the past with regards to lore. If you don't have a lot of space, I'm fine with leaving things out and perhaps painting with broad strokes in some areas. I encourage adding details where few or none exist, or advancing the timeline to allow for new material. Make an honest attempt at least. But if you feel you need to make major changes to a setting in order to meet the current IP holder's agenda, then IMO you need to start over with a new setting and a new story. To do otherwise is to do a disservice to the work of your predacessors, and a sign of disrespect.

It doesn't matter if people like what you came up with. Rewriting an existing setting is wrong IMO. Express your creativity and tell a different story.

I agree with you in general. I'm not sure that 5e did that (all that much). At least they didn't do what 4e did to the Realms (It didn't bother me then, I'd barely ever played in the Realms at the time, but I really understand why it was widely loathed). Perhaps it's a bit of your "I like the changes", maybe, but it's more "I don't see the changes", or at least, "I don't see the changes as significant."

That's not to be dismissive of your position! In fact, I wouldn't mind a couple of specific examples from you as to changes that you object to, if for no other purpose but for me to nod and say, "I see what you mean" even if they don't bother me.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I remember the demons being called tanar'ri, the devils being called baatezu and the daemons being called yugoloths. I actually liked the name change for these three. But I had forgotten that angels received the same name treatment. Weird.

I played 2e like nothing else, and yet... I don't remember any of this. I assume that it's likely that I just never used any of those creatures in my games. 2e was a time of a lot of settings, sure, but it was also a time when a lot of players played their OWN settings. I was one of those, and maybe our setting didn't have them. I don't remember writing them OUT, but I guess none of us (several of my group DMed) ever wrote them IN either.

 

[Remathilis]

I remember the demons being called tanar'ri, the devils being called baatezu and the daemons being called yugoloths. I actually liked the name change for these three. But I had forgotten that angels received the same name treatment. Weird.

It's an obscure bit of PS lore, but for a while the upper planes were aasimon, asuras, archons, guardinials, and eladrin while the lower were tanar'ri, baatazeu, yugoloths, and gehreleths. To be honest, when I run Planescape again I think I will return to the 2e names for planes and creatures; they seem more fantastical and proper compared to cluesless primes calling them angels and demons.