D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices

[Lanefan]

Simply, an attribute bonus / penalty system is a slippery slope. There are better ways to account for biology

Perhaps there are better ways, but bonuses-penalties to stats are simple, straightforward, and easy to grok.

If you-as-player don't want to deal with bonuses-penalties, play a Human.

No. I’m suggesting that delivering an inclusive and diverse D&D game means a radical change. It means move away from a race based system to a class system.

And from there it's a very short step to removing creature type entirely as a mechanical variable, which while being fine for thems as wants it, makes me ask why even bother having different PC creature types?

Makes it easier to balance, to be sure.

And makes it a whole lot blander.

On the topic of NPCs using generic decriptions - e.g. Elves are dextrous but unwise, Gnomes are smart but weak, Orcs are tough but ugly, etc. - but allowing PCs of any creature type to be just as flexible as Humans and to mechanically ignore said generic descriptions, my immediate question is this: if you want to play a particular non-Human creature type why can't you accept that said non-Human creature type (no matter what it is) comes with certain strings attached?

Put another way, what's the problem with having PCs of a certain creature type reflect the general tendencies of that creature?

This seems to me like a broad-based case of players wanting to have thier cake and eat it too.

 

[Lanefan]

Darkvision is magic. I get it, some snakes have heat vision, some sharks have electrical senses, bats and dolphins have sonar. But they dont work like darkvision does. Darkvision is magic.

In your game, perhaps.

It's trivially easy to explain two different types of "darkvision" using simple real-world examples. You already hit on one: snakes' heat vision, or "infravision". Some other mostly-nocturnal creatures (including common house cats, I believe) can see a little way into the ultraviolet, just off the violet end of what our eyes can see, and this gives them better night sight or "ultravision" outdoors.

In our games underground creatures (e.g. Dwarves, Gnomes, etc.) generally have infravision and fey creatures (Elves etc.) often have ultravision. Some few creatures have both, Dragons being the most notable example.

 

[Haldrik]

I’m not sure that this is an either / or situation. Yes, 5e is doing well. And it’ll do so until it’s not. Change is not incremental. It is radical. It is transformative. It is unexpected. It can totally change the expectations and our understanding of how things have worked before. History is littered with it and, in the current times, COVID and BLM are spectacularly apposite and modern examples.

I was suggesting that if WotC is being honest about being inclusive and diverse it will need to be more than the minimal window dressing being suggested thus far. It is not a bunch of errata to the core books or some rule changes. It is not re-jigging or creating new origin stories.

Real change in D&D will mean a new edition sooner rather than later because it requires a rethought on mechanics for handling difference and “race”. (And, yes, that might mean they will also involve improvements to psionics)

So far, the only mechanical changes are removing alignment from the statblocks of humanoid creatures. Plus character customization options. If this resolves any mechanical issues relating to inclusiveness, this is painless. Even awesome. Character customization sooner rather than later. Fantastic.

If WotC assigns alignments to the ideology of a faction, then having more than one faction allows different gaming styles. For example the drow. Players who want classic Good versus Evil, then they focus on the Lolth faction as the BBEG. Players who want to play a drow hero focus on the Good faction.

In fact, to move alignment from the creature species to the faction makes Old School games work better. Because Old School too had the Good drow. Now, when an Evil wizard gathers an army of orcs, these orcs are Evil because this wizard founded an Evil faction. That is how the Old School narratives tended to explain the situation anyway.

If the word "race" is dropped and replaced with "species" or "folk" or so, it isnt really a mechanical change, but the jargon is worth mentioning. Note, species is a word that has been around for many centuries, and used to mean a different kind of creature, since Renaissance times. Renaissance words in D&D are fine ingame. (Certainly the word "species" is more appropriate in a D&D setting than is the weirdly American antiquated legalese term "race". The word "race" has too much unpleasant baggage to survive as a neutral technical term.)

Search-and-replace with the word "species" or so. Delete alignment from humanoid statblocks. Make more character customization available. Done. Mechanically.



Probably, most of the scrutiny involves flavor, tropes, images, and narratives.

So really, the reallife issues relate moreso to the SETTING, not the mechanics. So we dont need a new edition of D&D. We just need updates of the official settings.

When it comes to the settings, it is hard to say whether the updates will be minimalist tweaks or dramatic retcons.

 

[Haldrik]

In your game, perhaps.

It's trivially easy to explain two different types of "darkvision" using simple real-world examples. You already hit on one: snakes' heat vision, or "infravision". Some other mostly-nocturnal creatures (including common house cats, I believe) can see a little way into the ultraviolet, just off the violet end of what our eyes can see, and this gives them better night sight or "ultravision" outdoors.

In our games underground creatures (e.g. Dwarves, Gnomes, etc.) generally have infravision and fey creatures (Elves etc.) often have ultravision. Some few creatures have both, Dragons being the most notable example.

This is strictly technical, but heat vision only sees temperature differences, and is blind when things are same temperature, which is often most things.

The gaming simplicity of Darkvision is magic. There is even a spell that grants Darkvision magically. Magical blood of magical creatures can do magical things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Real change in D&D will mean a new edition sooner rather than later because it requires a rethought on mechanics for handling difference and “race”.

Completely disagree. They can easily issue alternate takes on ability score bonuses, write the fluff differently going forward, and do a 50th anniversary edition of the core books that puts those changes in the core without changing nearly enough to call it a new edition.

 

[Haldrik]

Completely disagree. They can easily issue alternate takes on ability score bonuses, write the fluff differently going forward, and do a 50th anniversary edition of the core books that puts those changes in the core without changing nearly enough to call it a new edition.

Wow, that is brilliant.

Using the 50th Year anniversary issue to present all the updates and errata comprehensively.

 

[Catolias]

Completely disagree. They can easily issue alternate takes on ability score bonuses, write the fluff differently going forward, and do a 50th anniversary edition of the core books that puts those changes in the core without changing nearly enough to call it a new edition.

Sure, they can — and likely will — do that. But, to me, that is not a question of evolution and choice. It’s reactive, drag-me-into-the-now-change.

Also, beyond adding a new species / genus it won’t necessarily address the customisation issue as the structure 5e is built upon is not designed for granular options.

 

[Haldrik]

Sure, they can — and likely will — do that. But, to me, that is not a question of evolution and choice. It’s reactive, drag-me-into-the-now-change.

Also, beyond adding a new species / genus it won’t necessarily address the customisation issue as the structure 5e is built upon is not designed for granular options.

I view WotC as choosing to evolve. Even the originators of D&D seem "progressive for their times". In hindsight, the MeToo generation would be annoyed with their view of women, but on other issues they seemed decent. To their credit, there is only "one human race". Meanwhile, D&D continued to evolve. Things like the Strength deficiency for female characters were dropped a long time go. Oriental Adventures came out, during a time when Americans were fascinated with East Asian martial arts, Buddhism, Chinese, Thai, Japanese foods. In hindsight, some of the content seems unfortunate, but not really meanspirited. Its creators genuinely liked the cultures even if ignorant about them. For 5e, WotC worked hard to include women gamers, as well as black and latino American gamers. Crawford is a prominent spokesperson who is open and supportive of the LGBT community. The massive protests for justice for black Americans seems to have rushed the scheduling of some things that WotC were working on, but it seems like it was stuff that they were planning to do eventually anyway. Depending on the particular issue, the progress can feel protracted − two steps forward and one step back. In general, WotC seems genuine and moving in the right direction.

If anything, 5e is the edition that is all about trying to make as many players as happy as possible. It comes into existence from unprecedented massive surveys and playtesting. (Which I credit Mearls for.) And generally moves slowly and cautiously so as to get things right, to make as many players as happy as possible.

 

[FireLance]

If my decision to retain race-based ability score adjustments in my games means that you call me racist, then so be it.

I will just have to endure your poor opinion of me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, they can — and likely will — do that. But, to me, that is not a question of evolution and choice. It’s reactive, drag-me-into-the-now-change.

Also, beyond adding a new species / genus it won’t necessarily address the customisation issue as the structure 5e is built upon is not designed for granular options.

5e won’t ever be designed for granular options, and if there is a 6e, it won’t be either.

It will look like variant Tieflings or like something similar to the variant options for classes UA.

If we are lucky, it will be a simple rule that states that the player can choose any +2 and any +1, and ignore the race bonuses. Hopefully with a caveat that mountain dwarves get a +1 to strength even when using this rule, since their entire subrace is basically the fact they get +2 strength rather than +1.

Maybe give them Powerful Build and a bonus to melee damage, instead.

The point is, what you’re suggesting is extremely unlikely, and not necessary.