• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) How to import "race" flavor into D&D 2024 inclusively

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Yes, because I was stating a preference…
. Your reasons given previously frame the design as if the player is the only person that design should serve. D&D is not a single player game, the needs of everyone at the table have to be taken into account and provided for for there to be good design.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vikingkingq

Adventurer
. Your reasons given previously frame the design as if the player is the only person that design should serve. D&D is not a single player game, the needs of everyone at the table have to be taken into account and provided for for there to be good design.
The players are the overwhelming majority of the people at the table, and ultimately the DM is trying to tell a story they will enjoy. So yeah I think it is good design.
 

Yaarel

He-Mage
How D&D traditions split up Strength and Dexterity is a pain point for me.

In 2014, an "agile" character must have high Strength. Yet the character who can jump far is unable to land the fall properly, and the character that can climb well is unable to balance properly. This drives me insane. To force players to invest in both Strength and Dexterity in order to have a fully "agile" character, is ridiculous in the context of how classes utilize these abilities, and prohibitively expensive. The split between Strength and Dexterity is narratively absurd − and kills the swashbuckling genre.

2024 needs to resolve this mechanical awkwardness.


Ideally, there are eight abilities, not six. Add Athletics and Perception. Then Strength equals size only. Dexterity equals manual dexterity only. And Athletics equals mobility only. Str-Con, Dex-Ath, Int-Per, Cha-Wis. Something like this is possible in the 2024 DMs Guide. But it would only be practicable if the DM can refer to the Athletics ability while looking at a Monster Manual statblock.

Since the 2024 default rules remain backward compatible, it is less easy to resolve the Strength/Dexterity split.

For me, the difference between a lumbering Giant and an agile Rabbit/Squirrel is salient archetypes that many fantasy concepts refer to.

There are several ways to achieve this verisimilitude.


One way to resolve the Str/Dex split. Make Dexterity responsible for every Athletics check, especially for jumping and climbing, as well as falling and balancing. Relatedly, this is the only way to make the Reflex AC bonus make sense. The character is leaping away from the Fireball, or bodily dodging the sword swing.

Then Strength gets defined as the ability to maneuver heavy weight − beyond ones own body weight. Thus Strength means brute force and has nothing to do with agile gymnastics.

The problem with this approach is, Dexterity is already a super ability, and adding mobility might cause pause.


An other way to resolve the Str/Dex split. Make Strength responsible for every Acrobatics check, especially for falling and balancing. Athletics swallows Acrobatics whole. Strength is agile, Strength can aim, swing swords and throw hammers, precisely. Strength is athletic, and athletes can balance and land falls, and throw baseballs.

Then Size means brute force. An Elephant can push a tree down, because Huge. It has low Strength thus is unable to leap great distances.

This implies that there is a Size damage bonus, rather than a Strength damage bonus. Size is carrying capacity. Strength grants the AC bonus because of athletic dodging, but perhaps a finesse weapon can also grant this AC bonus because of parrying.

Moving all of Acrobatics to Strength, and maybe the AC bonus too, turns Strength from a too-often dumped ability, into a great choice of ability for any character. Even a Wizard will want to be mobile with the good AC bonus.


In any case, I hope 2024 somehow finds a way to resolve the mobility Str/Dex split. Because it is incredibly painful.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
The players are the overwhelming majority of the people at the table, and ultimately the DM is trying to tell a story they will enjoy. So yeah I think it is good design.
Said overwhelming majority" is easily able to use peer pressure against a single if their gm acts unreasonably, the same is not true in reverse. Aome of those needs being ignored for the non player side of the dm screen are also functionality that operates in service of "trying to tell a story" as. You put it.Also you might not want to throw around terms like majority when talking about the exclusive focus on players needs here... "DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases"
 
Last edited:

Vikingkingq

Adventurer
Said overwhelming majority" is easily able to use peer pressure against a single if their gm acts unreasonably, the same is not true in reverse. Aome of those needs being ignored for the non player side of the dm screen are also functionality that operates in service of "trying to tell a story" as. You put it.Also you might not want to throw around terms like majority when talking about the exclusive focus on players needs here... "DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases"
I think in general leaving it to peer pressure is a bad idea, that’s a recipe for tension at the table and people not enjoying themselves and groups breaking up.

And given that 5e is several factors more successful than any earlier edition and has been selling well for ten years, I somehow think there’s sufficient functionality for DMs within it.

And I don’t see any reason why I should have to censor my opinion; I’m not trying to sell you books.
 

Yaarel

He-Mage
What is an ORC?

The name orc comes from various reallife folkbeliefs.

Ultimately the term comes from Roman folkbelief, Latin orcus, the name of the underworld (and of its Roman god).

Etymologists explain orcus derives from a Proto-Indoeuro term meaning to "lock up", "shut away", "guard". The English term arcane also derives from this in the sense of "kept secret". Some etymologists note a possible connotation from the Greek term horkos, meaning an "oath" from the sense of "locking in" a promise. Generally, orcus means the dead are locked away in the grave.

The term orc finds its way into Old English (West Saxon dialect), specifically in Beowulf. The date seems disputed, somewhere 700s thru 900s. The term is a compound noun, orcné, meaning a "corpse" né of the "underworld" orc. In other words, an orc is an undead.

Elsewhere in Old French, this earlier term orc came to be pronounced as ogre (by metathesis). Ogre is attested since the 1200s to mean a "human-eating giant", or in an other context, a "fierce Nonchristian". In the sense of "giant" there might be a sense of one who comes to punish the breaker of an "oath".

Relatedly, Old Spanish transmits a cognate of Latin orcus, namely huerco, meaning the "devil" in Christianity. In this process of demonizing pagan folkbeliefs, the underworld in the sense of the realm of dead came instead to be understood as the hellish lake of fire, whence its god equates to the satan. (Probably this likewise relates to the Old French ogre in the sense of a "Nonchristian".)

Like the Old French ogre, Italian uses its term orco to mean a "giant".

With all of this mind, Tolkien himself an etymologist reused the Old English term orc to mean the Christian "hell", thus in the sense of a corpse of hell, reused the term orc-né to mean the corpse of a demon. Whence the Tolkien orc is a "demon", which in his fantasy world is equivalent to a "goblin". The creation of the Tolkien orc is a modified "elf", becoming "savage" and corrupted by evil.


Translating all of the folkbeliefs into D&D opens up many interesting flavors.

In every edition of D&D, the D&D Orc has never felt like a Tolkien orc. The Orc has never been a demonic elf. It was more a mix of human and animal. Early editions did feel like Orc and Goblin were interchangeable, at least in usage, but that has been untrue since 3e. The Orc was always tall about 6 feet, but by 5e the giantlike qualities of the Orc are more evident. And the Fey small sprite qualities of the Goblin are more evident.

Given the reallife meaning, Orc = Ogre, I want to emphasize the D&D Orc is the D&D Giant creature type. Specifically, the Orc is a kind of Ogre that is more humanlike, hence the Humanoid creature type. I would like D&D 2024 to say phrases like, the Orc is a "Humanoid Giant".

Where the Orc is a creature of underworld, namely the D&D Shadowfell, is fascinating. In Beowulf, the "underworld corpse" seems to be an Undead creature type. However, in other contexts of "orc" such as "ogre", this is more like: the Orc is the forces of death that come from the Shadowfell.

Orc can come with necromancy flavors. There different kinds of Giants, perhapse the Ogre and Orc are more like "Death Giants".

At the same, the connotation of underworld might merely refer to a being from the ground itself. In other words, these giants are nature beings of mountains and hills, etcetera. This suggests some Elemental aspects.

The Orc also comes with the meanings of a D&D Fiend via the Christian hell and devil. I feel the Astral creature Gruumsh can have all of these fiendish connotations, and the Orc itself, none of it.

Note also, the D&D necromantic Fiend Orcus can share some of its necromantic flavor with the Orc.


Now, I definitely want to say, the Orc is a kind of Giant. A necromantic one seems interesting.

When what defines an Orc is so fantastical and so inhuman, it is easier to describe the Orc in a distinctive flavorful way, without referencing any reallife human ethnicities.

In D&D history, the descriptions of the Orc were actually racist (representing tropes from East Asian "yellow" orcs with "shamans", Indigenous American "red" orcs, and Black African "withdoctors" of dark skinned "savage tribes", who must be conquered).

It seems easy to delete all of this reallife racism. Focus on the unique kind of Giant flavor instead.
 
Last edited:


Yaarel

He-Mage
For my games, I plan to mostly use Lord of the Rings orcs for the primary foe-like group.
Are you planning for your Orc to lean into Tolkiens "demonic elf" trope? This might mean several things.
• Unseelie Fey
• Fiend
• Shadowfell

To me, the Lord of the Ring movies have a strong Shadowfell vibe. With Shadow corruption and its gloom overtaking the Material Plane. The Ring of Invisibility seems more like a ring of etherealness, exept here it is definitely the Border Shadow, rather than the Border Ether.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Are you planning for your Orc to lean into Tolkiens "demonic elf" trope? This might mean several things.
• Unseelie Fey
• Fiend
• Shadowfell
No. Probably the standard Greyhawk orc.

To me, the Lord of the Ring movies have a strong Shadowfell vibe. With Shadow corruption and its gloom overtaking the Material Plane. The Ring of Invisibility seems more like a ring of etherealness, exept here it is definitely the Border Shadow, rather than the Border Ether.
I agree that jives with the LOTR feel.
 

Yaarel

He-Mage
No. Probably the standard Greyhawk orc.
Heh, with regard to the "standard Greyhawk" Orc,

Do you mean a Noneuropean "savage" "tribe" who can be slaughtered on sight for fun?

But seriously, if so, I would make the Orcs "definitely not Humanoid". Make them the Fiend creature type, with the mentality of a Golem, and unable to have a culture or a self will, or even unable to feel pain or suffer. Alternatively, make the Orc the Undead creature type in the sense of a manifestation of the deathly forces of the Shadow.

This relentless zombie apocalypse Orc isnt too far away, and has its own kind of horror.
 

Remove ads

Top