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

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't really see how this improves inclusivity in any way, really. This just seems like it would get rid of the meaning of the ability scores, and not seem realistic.

It is just a more thorough treatment of the removal of racial ASIs in your OP, and possibly WotC's adjustment of the racial ASIs. Removing racial ASIs allows people to optimise concepts that have previously been less synergised with racial ASIs (such as the Gnome barbarian). Removing the link between class performance and ability scores completely allows you to play a more diverse range of characters - You now don't have to play a strong character to be an effective barbarian.
We know that WotC are thinking of giving the ability to change how racial ASIs are allocated. Whether they'll do something as extreme as disconnecting them completely, removing them, or disengaging ability scores entirely we can only speculate on. But this is a thread for discussing this sort of suggestion positively.

I have the same problems with this as the one above. I don't see how it promotes inclusivity and don't really find it realistic.

Likewise no longer pushing a specific character image in order to be able to mechanically perform.

I fail to see the relevance. Please clarify, and I mean no disrespect. I am a bit dense.

I'd guess to keep separation between creatures that can have a primarily antagonistic culture in the setting for the purpose of providing the PCs with opponents, and PC races, which may not.

 

[Azzy]

Inclusive to whom?

How about inclusive to non-bigots?

 

[Oofta]

Ah cool. Don’t worry I won’t touch this with a 10ft pole. I leave you to the echo chamber.

Same here. Especially when I see posts like

​

How about inclusive to non-bigots?​

​

​

Which to me says loud and clear "if you don't agree with the basic premise, you're a bigot".

Anyway, I disagree with much of the basic premise so I'll leave everyone to seek their bliss.

 

[Azzy]

Which to me says loud and clear "if you don't agree with the basic premise, you're a bigot".

If the "basic premise" you disagree with is the attempting to better promote inclusivity , then I don't know what to tell you—I don't know why any reasonable person would be opposed to promoting inclusivity. If you disagree with the approaches to how to better promote inclusivity provided in this thread, I don't see why you would think that my statement implies that your disagreement makes you a bigot. ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Oofta]

If the "basic premise" you disagree with is the attempting to better promote inclusivity , then I don't know what to tell you—I don't know why any reasonable person would be opposed to promoting inclusivity. If you disagree with the approaches to how to better promote inclusivity provided in this thread, I don't see why you would think that my statement implies that your disagreement makes you a bigot. ¯\(ツ)/¯

The basic premise is that anything that looks vaguely like a human and doesn't have supernatural abilities (aka humanoid) there should be no alignment, not even a default with a more explicit explanation of "do what makes sense for your campaign".

I think it's insulting to state that anyone that doesn't agree with the basic premise being a bigot. It's a game and I disagree that having evil monsters causes an issue.

But this is a dead horse. Have fun ignoring anyone who disagrees.

 

[Azzy]

The basic premise is that anything that looks vaguely like a human and doesn't have supernatural abilities (aka humanoid) there should be no alignment, not even a default with a more explicit explanation of "do what makes sense for your campaign".

When you completely redefine the premise of this thread like you just did, I can see why you might be offended.

 

[Oofta]

When you completely redefine the premise of this thread like you just did, I can see why you might be offended.

Really?

Alignment removed from humanoids at the very least. Possibly removed from dragons and other "monsters" but the extent to this is up for debate here.

I'm "redefining" the premise by practically quoting word for word the OP and defining what a humanoid is.

I also disagree with most of the rest of what the OP said as well, but he doesn't want to hear disagreements and the alignment thing is a dead horse so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Azzy]

Really?

Really.

I'm "redefining" the premise by practically quoting word for word the OP and defining what a humanoid is.

Selectively quoting, that is.

Note that the thread starts with:

Okay. There has been quite a lot of discussion on this website and through the D&D community in general about what changes should be made to existing products, the current editions, and the next edition to promote inclusivity. A lot of the suggestions have been fought against, and for, by various members of the community. Now, while I agree with a lot of the changes that are being suggested, I think that timing is important here. I agree that we should change problematic descriptions in the current edition's books, like what is happening with Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation. I also think that most of the more major changes should be made in a 6e of D&D.

The bit you quoted is also preceded by:

Now, here are the changes that I have compiled from various threads that seem to be wanted:

So, your quote has a context that you've ignored and is not reflective of the actual premise. It is merely one idea that has been put forth on other threads and compiled here.

I also disagree with most of the rest of what the OP said as well, but he doesn't want to hear disagreements and the alignment thing is a dead horse so I'll just leave it at that.

Like I said previously, if disagree with one, more, or all of the specific changes compiled and mentioned, that's cool—you can make alternate suggestions to achieve the premise of "what changes should be made to existing products, the current editions, and the next edition to promote inclusivity".

 

[Azzy]

Damn, I'm never going to finish my response to the OP at this rate.

 

[Azzy]

Mechanically, I really don't think a whole lot needs to change—it's mostly a factor of presentation, terminology, inclusive language, depictions, and excising real-world stereotypes and other questionable things.

As far as the race/subrace issue and the racial ASIs, I think that Ancestry & Culture: An Alternative to Race in 5e has taken a good approach and could be emulated.

As for alignment, I don't see it as terribly relevant to inclusivity in and of itself. But making a point to say that it's optional wouldn't hurt my feelings (actually, that could allow alternate approaches to alignment in the DMG—like BECMI's law/neutral/chaos, 4e's alignments, or other takes). For stat blocks of humanoids and the like, replacing a static alignment with "any alignment" should suffice there along with how they're differently depicted in a given setting.

Yeah, the linking of shamanism exclusively with "savage" and "primitive" cultures or "monstrous" humanoids needs to go into the trash bin. Shamanism is limited to non-urban, "traditional" civilizations.