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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

My intention for my next campaign after we finish the current one (early next year hopefully), will be to run a Translyvannia/Dracula game using A Guide to Transylvania pulling ideas from:

• 5e's Curse of Strahd;
• I6 Ravenloft;
• Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill;
• 3.5e's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft; and

perhaps even something from VtM line.

I will very much be using Christianity, Judaism and Islam in those games - converting the class of the cleric to a Priest, Rabbi or Imam respectively. There will be a number of other changes as well ofcourse. Definitely be using a Faith and Sanity score.

If you haven't already, check out the DM running the game, Nightwick Abbey. I think Evan is still running it and even switched over to 5e for a while (thought I think he's back to use OSR titles). I played in Evan's game 8-10 years ago. I think Evan will have some ideas you can steal.

In Places Deep

inplacesdeep.blogspot.com

 

[clearstream]

I wouldn't mind having a "free reign" to add a +2/+2 or the 5E standard of +2/+1 to any Ability Score of Choice during Character Creation. That way if I want a dumb Elf whose focus is STR, I can do it.

If I want a Charismatic Orc who can spin a mean yarn while being sharp at noticing things like an eagle, then I can focus on WIS and CHA.

If I want female Drow whose Hardy and Intelligent and doesn't want to be a Cleric, I can go CON and INT.

If you still want to go by regular DND racial scores, then you can still do that as a variant rule. But this method gives you the option of spicing things up.

My concern is this. I want a charismatic orc is easy to agree on. I want a non-charismatic warlock is harder, especially for a novice who might not be aware of the mechanics implications.

Hence I favour stripping the bonuses out of race, but in some form keeping them in class. For example, maybe you have a discretionary +1 and a class-based +2? An interesting option would be to leave the class-based bonus until choosing path, and maybe offer some choice.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

But since no one reffered to them as tetchy, that shouldn't be the case.

Ah, just "many", very good.

 

[Azzy]

Ah, just "many", very good.

Nope. Didn't refer to "many" of them as tetchy, either. Try reading my post again, but this time without going out of your way to find something to be angsty about.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My concern is this. I want a charismatic orc is easy to agree on. I want a non-charismatic warlock is harder, especially for a novice who might not be aware of the mechanics implications.

Hence I favour stripping the bonuses out of race, but in some form keeping them in class. For example, maybe you have a discretionary +1 and a class-based +2? An interesting option would be to leave the class-based bonus until choosing path, and maybe offer some choice.

This works fine for classes where there's a single key ability score (ie wizards) but gets trickier when a class can be played multiple ways with respect to ability scores (ie fighters) - and I think the later category is a lot bigger than the former.

We already provide guidance for new players in the class descriptions - there's no need to reinforce that guidance with hard rules, especially if we want to make as many concepts playable as possible.

I'm also going to say: "I want to make a non-charismatic warlock" isn't something that I feel is needed in principal. Trying to make every class work with every ability array is a crazy-huge task that will require a ton of oddball subclasses and alternate features and a lot of weird, contradictory ideas like muscle wizards and charm-focused rangers and scrawny barbarians who get by on pure intellect (while raging). That's not a path that I'd like to see pursued.

This is especially true when most of thise ideas are already well-represented by another class. There's no need to make a highly trained, emotionally even, heavy-armor wearing barbarian. Fighters are already a thing.

You can get "any race/class combination is valid" pretty easily though, so that's a worthwhile goal.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope. Didn't refer to "many" of them as tetchy, either. Try reading my post again, but this time without going out of your way to find something to be angsty about.

why do people like to deny what is in plain sight?

 

[Remathilis]

I think that it's because many people become rather tetchy when it comes to religion (especially their own). Even within a single religion, it can be quite sectarian and what is a respectful to one person can be extremely offensive to another. So, I don't think that representing real-world religions is the best idea. Rather, I think the cleric class and the DMG should express how different types of religion can look and work within the game and the game's fiction, and provide some examples of different types of religions from monotheism to animism and everything in between.

Go one step further: I think it's time for Thor, Apollo, Set, and Lugh to all say goodnight and retire from the PHB and planes. Remove all the Earth-based deities, even the "mythical" ones.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Go one step further: I think it's time for Thor, Apollo, Set, and Lugh to all say goodnight and retire from the PHB and planes. Remove all the Earth-based deities, even the "mythical" ones.

That would also include: Pelor, Bahamut, Correlon Larethian, Tiamat, Asmodeus.

There's only, like, a handful of unique DnD deities. Trying to go for an all-trademaked pantheon would actually involve several long-standing DnD traditions.

 

[Remathilis]

Also: Pelor, Bahamut, Correlon Larethian, Tiamat...

Fictional D&D deities would be fine. No one's cultural heritage is being gamified there. You might have a stronger argument for entities like Tiamat and Asmodeus who are based on real world entities but the D&D version is very different.

 

[GreenTengu]

Even if one doesn't find issue with the flavor text, a seed (can't use race) of purely evil savages is incredibly boring from a story perspective. Calling all orcs evil by nature is lazy and trite. While I don't find current the flavor of orcs "problematic" in the slightest (orcs are not real; insisting we categorizing humans into groups is an unsettling proposition), I find many of the suggested replacements more compelling than the original and an overall improvement.

It would certainly make more sense to at least say "Most are hostile to humans/elves/dwarfs because A, B, C, D" as it would allow them to be cooperative enough within their own society to functionally be able to raise children and thrive to the point of creating an army that is enough of a threat that it requires heroes to deal with it. Because no totally evil race that nonetheless has the same biological needs as humans and other animals could ever avoid being so self-destructive as to not really be capable of bothering anyone.

It also opens the door for other races to take up the role as villains. Honestly-- I think Dragonborn ought to be treated in that same way. Why would dragon-people be universally docile and subservient to all these small mammalian folk anyway? And Dwarfs could also be one hell of an antagonist force with their controlling the underground passages, superior mechanical knowledge and ability to see in pitched blackness.

It can always come with the caveat that some number of them have given up the old vices or grudges over the centuries and they and their children have settled in as just regular folk.