Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8700029" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Greyhawk is D&D before people thought they needed to color within the lines. Greyhawk is D&D your way. It's the infinite multiverse and crashed spaceships, it's ninja nazi monks and demon-possessed emperors, it's endless black ice and dead civilizations blasted by colorless fire. It's a mechanical bejeweled songbird from two millennia ago with powers that amaze and terrify, and an ancient computer designed by a long-ago Baron driven insane by his creation. It's a dark nameless god dreaming within a crystalline cyst, and demi-gods raised from the ranks of mere mortal adventurers. It's a land that contains both the hospitable and brave free people of the Yeomanry who regularly elect their leaders from amongst their ranks, as well as the infamy of Vlek, the Stonefist, who acquired power through the slaughter of the Coltens Feodality under cover of negotiation.I have often made the case for Greyhawk, but as we come up on the 50th Anniversary of D&D (1974 - 2024), I think that it is a no-brainer for WoTC to re-visit the setting. When you have an anniversary that allows a celebration of the past, it would seem a natural fit to update and release the OG of official campaign settings. Not to mention the basis for a lot of the lore we have seen recently; after all, Vecna, Mordenkainen, Tasha ... all have their roots in Greyhawk.But while I have spilled some words (for large amounts of "some") discussing Greyhawk in general in the past, today I wanted to concentrate on a more narrow issue- given that WoTC always releases campaign settings that have player-facing options in order to increase sales, what player-facing options would a revised Greyhawk setting have?....and, honestly, this is an area that I struggle with. Because Greyhawk was the original campaign setting, a lot of things that we take for granted were introduced for play during the Greyhawk era, but are now part of the regular game. For example, I don't think "Drow" would be a big selling point. Other things just couldn't be (or shouldn't be) done- Greyhawk had a rich description of the various waves of human settlers/colonizers/invaders to the Flanaess (Oerdian, Suel, Baklunish, Flannae etc.), but D&D has rightfully avoided any mechanical differentiation in humans.I am also not interested in either more varieties of Elves (although people can post them in the comments) or in listing things that have been covered elsewhere but are present in Greyhawk (Centaurs, Bugbears, etc.).With that in mind, I am going to throw out a few ideas and then see if others have a few of their own for player-facing options for Greyhawk-A. Scarlet Brotherhood Monks. This one is the easiest. Maybe too easy. Obviously, the monks of Greyhawk are a little different- the whole Nazi thing. Which maybe makes them not as appealing a player option ... while you can always Drizzt it up (the PC is someone who is against the prevailing power structure, etc.) you may want to leave this whole area as "Villain/NPC only."B. Tiefling/Cambion. Yes, Tieflings are technically related to (descendants of, bloodline curse, etc.) ....fiends, which means either devil or demon. But other than IIRC a UA, the TIeflings to date in 5e have had a distinct devilish tilt. Either through a pact with Asmodeum or in MTOF other Archdevils. The one thing that Greyhawk has ... is demons. Grazzt. Iuz has had a presence and a country. Let's have some demon-centric options.C. Aliens/Vegepygmies. Maybe it's time for some more plant-based PCs? The original alien life form was the vegepygmy, in Barrier Peaks. Maybe you don't want to go "full robot" but you could certainly introduce some of the old classics as PC options.D. Valley Elf. Ugh, no. Gag me with a spoon.E. Return of the Old? This might be too stupid (or too clever), but maybe have variant classes that reflect the oldest AD&D classes that we no longer have. An illusionist that isn't just a pale Wizard subclass, but a REAL ILLUSIONIST. A ranger option that skews heavily toward the old Aragorn/strider model (a Fighter Subclass, loosely based off of Eldritch Knight but with druid spells, maybe).F. Gary, expanded. A jester? A mountebank? An acrobat/thief? A savant? A mystic (no, sorry ... not that one, psionics fans)? There were ideas for expansions to the classes by Gygax that were introduced just prior to his departure, or were planned for afterwards. Obviously, the biggest issue is that several of these (jester, mountebank) might be bard-adjacent.G. Deity-specific subclasses, bonuses, or feats. Not just for clerics anymore! From OD&D through Dragon #283 (and beyond!), Greyhawk has had a rich tradition of providing bonuses for believers, clerics, or followers of certain deities. The pantheon of Greyhawk is bizarre, and fun, and whether you're a Shining Blade of Heironeous or a Theocrat of Pholtus, there is something for you here.H. Good artifacts make good artificers. Whether you're in the Yeomanry or Irongate, and regardless of whether you've excavated the Sea of Dust for forgotten technology of lost empires or found alien technology in the high mountains, there is something for all artificers within Greyhawk. Just don't go mad with the implications of what you are building ....I. Knights, knights, and more knights. Whether you're the Watch, Luna, or the Hart ... there are Knights of Orders a plenty in Greyhawk.Anyway, there are some seed ideas. I am sure that there are people here who could come up with more! And I'd love to see them.So let me ask- if you were releasing a New Greyhawk Campaign Setting, what player-facing options would you include? And what player-facing options would you like to see?</blockquote>

Verification