• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! 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) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
defining what a humanoid is.
I'm using the definition in the Monster Manual. Most character races are humanoids, and most humanoids are playable.
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.
"I don't want to hear disagreements"?

What's that supposed to mean. I want a discussion. Discussions call for disagreements. I want a discussion that actually gets something done, not go in circles like all the other threads on this topic. If you don't agree, that's fine. If you have no comment, please don't comment then. If you want to post with a disagreement, please do so with a better statement than "I hate the premise of this thread" and then leave.

Feel free to comment, but this thread is meant to be constructive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Also, I understand that people disagree with the premise. I also agree that you can disagree/be hesitant about some certain possible changes and not be a bigot. Please, don't direct insults at groups of people or any singular person in this thread. Rebuttals are obviously fine, disagreements and arguments are fine, but it's not nice, clever, or fun for any of us when you purposefully direct an insult or personal attack at someone on this thread.
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
Based on discussion to date, I think making Eberron the default setting for this ruleset would be a good fit. Include a section (3 - 4 pages?) in the PHB describing the top say 10 D&D settings by popularity, under a heading "Worlds of Imagination". Use a framework similar to the 4e Dark Sun book's "Things to know about the world" but write it in prose not bulletpoints.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
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.
Yep. I'm not meaning to be negative, I apologize if I came off that way. I'm just skeptical that those changes would help. For realism's sake, I don't personally want to remove the connection between strength and the power of your punches. I also think that certain classes and subclasses should be focused on specific ability scores just to make classes have meaning.
Likewise no longer pushing a specific character image in order to be able to mechanically perform.
I think paladins should have a distinct image. Removing Charisma from them would make them less unique, and make them seem meaningless.

(It has occurred to me that these are similar arguments to those arguing against removing racial ability scores. Classes and Races are different. Arguably, class is more important to character identity than race.)
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.
I don't know if I personally would agree with this, but thanks for contributing. I think if you were to remove the differences between ability scores and armors that wouldn't promote creativity, and instead would result in more bland characters.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Based on discussion to date, I think making Eberron the default setting for this ruleset would be a good fit. Include a section (3 - 4 pages?) in the PHB describing the top say 10 D&D settings by popularity, under a heading "Worlds of Imagination". Use a framework similar to the 4e Dark Sun book's "Things to know about the world" but write it in prose not bulletpoints.
I think Eberron could work fairly well as a default setting as well. It has a lot of lore, but nowhere as much as Forgotten Realms. It seems well liked by a lot of the community, and everyone I know who thought they wouldn't like Eberron has changed their mind after learning more about it.

Does anyone here object to making eberron the default? If so, which setting do you think should be the default?

(Also, I personally don't think the core rulebooks should be based on any default setting, but they would need a base setting for new players and DMs.)
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
How about inclusive to non-bigots?

“Bigot - A person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”

I’d say that makes every honest person a self proclaimed bigot. I mean aren’t we all prejudiced against rapists? But if we are all bigots then the accusation of bigotry kind of loses its sting.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Also, I understand that people disagree with the premise. I also agree that you can disagree/be hesitant about some certain possible changes and not be a bigot. Please, don't direct insults at groups of people or any singular person in this thread. Rebuttals are obviously fine, disagreements and arguments are fine, but it's not nice, clever, or fun for any of us when you purposefully direct an insult or personal attack at someone on this thread.

Thank you.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I am against a 6E at this time, but this is how I'd do the changes to account for modern social visions.
I don't want a 6e anytime soon. I've just finished buying all the 5e books, and don't want to start over. Also, there's not much of a reason to do a new edition at this time, especially when D&D is still more popular than it ever was before.
1.) Each PC would select a Humanoid Type, a Class, a Background, and a Profession.
2.) Humanoid type would provide you some purely physical characteristics tied to the form of the humanoid type. It would also give you points to spend in your background and profession. A race like aarakocra would get fewer points to spend elsewhere because it gains a power ability through the humanoid type.
3.) Class would be much as it is now, but would also include a bonus to the prime attribute of the class.
4.) Backgrounds would be much as they are now, but would you'd spend points from the pool provided by your humanoid type to obtain features from the background, like proficiencies, special abilities, tool proficiencies, etc... You would get an ability score bonus from your background choice.
5.) Your profession would be what you currently do as a newly heroic figure. While background looks at where you were, profession would look at where you are. Many of them would be tied directly to combat, but some options would focus on social or exploration abilities. Again, you could use points from your humanoid type to buy abilities in your profession. You would also get one ability score bonus from your profession. You'd be able to choose a second background as your profession, or something more focused on adventuring that was only available as a profession.
6.) If all three ability score bonuses (class, background and profession) are in the same attribute, you move one to an attribute of your choice.
7.) We'd establish that only humanoids have free will. Everything else, in the standard setting, is guided by directives put into them by the Gods or other forces. They have personalities, but they are programmed to be a certain way, and are not allowed to deviate without magic.
8.) However, these directives would not be alignments. Alignment would be removed from the game. Instead, these directives would be rules that the creatures without free will must follow and believe - and have no choice but to follow and believe. A red dragon would inherently value wealth, despise those weaker than it, and enjoy cruelty. You could shape the rest of their personality when one is met, but all red dragons would share the same core rules of belief and nature.
9.) As mentioned - no alignment. Instead, we'd focus on shared belief structures. Instead of a magic sword only being useful to good PCs, it would only be useful to one that was blessed by a certain deity. Instead of having spirit guardians dealing damage type based on alignment, it would be a choice.
Nice suggestions. I personally don't agree with a few of them, but this is a nice concept.
 

Oofta

Legend
I was j
I'm using the definition in the Monster Manual. Most character races are humanoids, and most humanoids are playable.

"I don't want to hear disagreements"?

What's that supposed to mean. I want a discussion. Discussions call for disagreements. I want a discussion that actually gets something done, not go in circles like all the other threads on this topic. If you don't agree, that's fine. If you have no comment, please don't comment then. If you want to post with a disagreement, please do so with a better statement than "I hate the premise of this thread" and then leave.

Feel free to comment, but this thread is meant to be constructive.

It's been a long week and this topic has been beaten to death and then some. Sorry.

My answer is simple but I've already posted it multiple times so I don't see the point. But ..
  • Emphasize that alignments are just a default and will vary from campaign to campaign.
  • Emphasize the supernatural influence for those campaigns that want evil (or practically always evil) humanoids.
  • Fix some of the imagery and wording. Why are the monstrous races always tribes while dwarves are clans?
  • Don't give monstrous races negative ability score modifiers.
But again, apologies. Long week, longer day. :(
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top