D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[doctorbadwolf]

The point was not to engage in a pedantic argument of what genre Eberron is.

It's not pedantic. You said that Eberron shouldn't be the default world (in 5e terms, this would just mean the world referenced most in the PHB), because it's "Steampunk" and that genre is out of the zeitgeist.

But neither part of the statement is true, and the second part relies entirely on the first.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not pedantic. You said that Eberron shouldn't be the default world (in 5e terms, this would just mean the world referenced most in the PHB), because it's "Steampunk" and that genre is out of the zeitgeist.

But neither part of the statement is true, and the second part relies entirely on the first.

Steampunk, Magipunk, Punkrock, it doesn't really matter. Eberron is not a generic adventuring world like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk. It takes a specialized taste to want to play in that sort of game, just like Dark Sun, Planescape or Ravenloft.

Making a specialized campaign setting the default world would be a mistake. It needs to remain one of the generic worlds, or else there shouldn't be a default at all.

 

[Umbran]

It's not pedantic. You said that Eberron shouldn't be the default world (in 5e terms, this would just mean the world referenced most in the PHB), because it's "Steampunk"

No, I didn't.

I said it was "steampunky". As in, "it has stylistic similarities to steampunk". Which I still maintain is true, given the art already posted in the thread.

The technical definition is irrelevant. The stylistic similarities are relevant. Fandom has largely moved on from steampunk, so those style elements are no longer a major selling point, and will seem rather passé.

The fact that I've had to say this several times over, apparently to deaf ears, is really annoying. Please do not make me repeat it again.

 

[Cadence]

I really feel like the Barbarian maybe needs a new name, at most, and maybe a different name and basic flavor for Rage.

Are rage, ki, panache/grit/luck all kind of in the same family of drawing on exceptional inner reserves to do amazing things?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Are rage, ki, panache/grit/luck all kind of in the same family of drawing on exceptional inner reserves to do amazing things?

Yep.

 

[Azzy]

Hold on, I'm confused:

The quoted text argues that the name isn't a problem. You open by agreeing with the quoted text: the name isn't a problem.

You then say "it's stupid to use the word barbarian to describe all non-European cultures" (which is true but is one way the word is used.) Implying the the reason the name isn't a problem is that it doesn't mean non-white.

So whether or not the name implies non-civilized is pretty relevant, I would think. Unless you think the name is the problem, in which case you're first sentence in the above post means the opposite of that.

No, what I read from the post in question is that it's stupid to have a class that's clearly modeled on the Norse berserker archetype also be a stand-in for other cultures that got labled at "barbarians".

Seriously, the barbarian class should never have been built around the rage/berseker concept (and left it squarely in the hands of a subclass) so that it could cover a broader array of cultural identities. Even the 1e barbarian class (horrible as it was) never had a rage feature and included a handful of options to customize it to fit different cultures.

 

[Sadras]

I really feel like the Barbarian maybe needs a new name, at most, and maybe a different name and basic flavor for Rage.

Not because it's problematic, but because it's really one of the most narrow basic concepts of a class, and it already has subclasses that just do not fit that base class concept, like the Zealot.

But I don't think that Ranger and Barbarian need to be the same class. They could be, but they don't need to be.

@doctorbadwolf and I generally do not agree on most things when it comes to issues surrounding these types of discussion about D&D, but I do see his point here. The barbarian class for me is a little jarring - not because I think there is some sort of PC issue but it just feels like a loose stitch for all types of fighters (historically inspired) who do not wear or have proficiency in particular armour/weapons. It just feels a little messy with all of them getting the d12 + rage to make up for the lack of armour/weapon proficiency.

Is it a problem? Probably only to someone who overthinks this issue, like me.
Do I know what the solution is? Nope.

 

[TheSword]

@doctorbadwolf and I generally do not agree on most things when it comes to issues surrounding these types of discussion about D&D, but I do see his point here. The barbarian class for me is a little jarring - not because I think there is some sort of PC issue but it just feels like a loose stitch for all types of fighters (historically inspired) who do not wear or have proficiency in particular armour/weapons. It just feels a little messy with all of them getting the d12 + rage to make up for the lack of armour/weapon proficiency.

Is it a problem? Probably only to someone who overthinks this issue, like me.
Do I know what the solution is? Nope.

I have no problem with the class as it stands. The raging Barbarian archetype is a pretty clear one in fantasy fiction - Conan, Khal Drogo, Fafhrd, Red Sonja, Logen Nine-fingers, Ghengis Cohen (shoft lavatory paper), He-man, heroquest, etc etc.

The mistake is applying a very specific type of character to a Native American and then wondering why this is not complementary. Don’t ascribe it incorrectly and then you won’t be disappointed.

Woah... that was my 1,000th post. I feel like I should celebrate.

 

[MGibster]

This thread is about making the game more inclusive. Does changing the name of the Barbarian, Druid, and Monk class actually make the game more inclusive? I don't think so.

 

[jasper]

Okay, want to give your argument for this? If you think absolutely nothing should change from 5e to 6e to promote inclusivity, please explain why.

5E has plenty of inclusivity. How does changing any thing like race adjustments to floating adjustments, verbiage changes, etc promote inclusivity. IF you don't like a penalty to playing a monster race don't play it. If you can't stand some of the verbiage of monsters/races/encounters change in your world.
NO one here has given me a good reason to change the racial adjustments. Some have given good reasons to change some of the verbiage due to stereotypes.