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

[Cadence]

Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.

I am great with not catering to min-maxers, and it drives me up a wall that folks feel the need to get every single extra +1 possible in their character and make them one sided to do it.

To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.

Why are all character concepts worth having in the game? Is Dungeons & Dragons really poorer if it doesn't allow (non-magically) for the physically strongest character in the game to be a halfling and let them wield a weapon scaled for someone over three times as tall as they are? Is it poorer if the players who chose to emphasize physical attributes over mental are better at physical combat? If your seductress and scholar are as good in combat as the character whose dedicated themselves to combat, haven't you de facto decided their character conception isn't worth supporting?

Iirc, you wanted to have STR and DEX separate, because they have too big of an influence on something that is 80-90% of the game (combat). Why are you bringing a discerning detective or clever scholar to a game that is 80-90% combat? Isn't the better solution there to find a DM who will run something that isn't all combat centric? Or if the party has a mix of interests to put various challenges in that don't all rely on combat?

If you want a strong but clumsy "Monk", why isn't the parsimonious solution to actually make a hand-to-hand unarmored fighter? Or to have a sub-class of Monk that subs out things that are based on speed and dexterity for things that are based on strength and endurance?

But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.

I missed the posts. Where have people been violently hostile to those who want to play characters of different skin colors, eye types, or tuskedness?

Are there any ability modifiers for the standard races that give more than a +1 bonus because of the race you picked? That hardly seems like sucking unless one is hyper focused on being a min-maxer to me. I'm guessing if one didn't see the dice rolls it would take a large number of combats to get a sample size large enough to notice the difference.

Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.

This through me off a bit, because there has never been a basic and advanced D&D that did that. Even the easiest versions had ability scores tied to combat.

But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG

I'm having trouble what you actually like about Dungeons and Dragons at this point.

And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.

At this point, you're ageistly insulting a bunch of people on here, many of whom are all for changing a bunch of the things to make the game more inclusive. All because they think ability scores affecting combat makes sense and that they like lots of options with mechanical implications?

 

[GreenTengu]

I just didn't think that making classes no longer be focused on any one ability score made sense, and was too rules-lite. I still think if you want to play a Wizard, you need to be intellectually smart as a character. If a character wants to max out Strength and use that as their ability score to cast Wizard spells, I would immediately say no, because that makes absolutely no sense. I understand this is a fantasy game, but I do personally prefer when things can make sense in my games.

I this still feels like the biggest barrier to D&D forging ahead is the 6 arbitrarily decided ability scores. If I were to look outside of the D&D system, I have trouble finding any character who would have a high strength and low constitution or low constitution and high strength. Those who stats are pretty obviously intrinsically linked just as the Dexterity stat covers far too many human abilities than belong in a single stat.

If there were a spell-caster who relied on Strength/Constitution, I see little difference between that idea and a Dragon Ball Z style martial artist who can unleash ki-blasts. Or, alternatively, they could use some sort of blood magic that can only be used so much before they cannot put out any more. Similarly, you could have a melee based character with high intellect who makes very precise strikes that are designed to sever the tendons and arteries-- because they are so knowledgeable about how a body works that even if they cannot strike as fast or as hard as another fighter, their understanding of various creature's biology allows them to basically dissect their opponents on the battlefield.

There are various ways to justify any sort of ability build while entirely divorcing the idea from what the character can do based on their class and level. Sometime it takes a bit more thinking outside the box and creativity, granted, but there are ways to arrive at the idea. The idea D&D has always had though is that is prescribes a "correct path" and so naturally all characters align to that path and dismiss any concepts that lie outside of it. As a result, in any given edition, all characters have been far too similar.

In D&D 5E-- every single character that exists, outside a couple classes, is dumb as a rock because Intelligence is hardly ever utilized and even the skills that are Intelligence-based require the DM to bend over backwards and create the whole adventure with the intent of them ever being usable and yet somehow still completable even if they are failed.

I missed the posts. Where have people been violently hostile to those who want to play characters of different skin colors, eye types, or tuskedness?

You missed the poster who replies to me and said that no one who doesn't pay $100,000 should be allowed to play an Orc, Hobgoblin, Goblin, etc.?

 

[Cadence]

You missed the poster who replies to me and said that no one who doesn't pay $100,000 should be allowed to play an Orc, Hobgoblin, Goblin, etc.?

I did miss that one (#24). But I don't think I would have recognized it as going with your comment about skin color, eye type, and tuskedness.

Your comment seems to say that that poster was "violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all."

The quote in question says:

No monster races can be player races. Exception you paid $10,000 to a currently unnamed charity to play any race from Volo’s as long as 6E lasts. Or you pay $100 to same charity per PC for an exception certificate.

Isn't that only talking about wanting to play things with the abilities of the monster races in the MM instead of just the ones in the PhB. That it's focusing on abilities seems clear from their third paragraph that is about reskinning between the PhB races for those who don't like a particular racial ability.

Then the Racial Abilities alone. If a person is upset he can’t play a race due to the racial abilities, include a sidebar about reskinning. I have a human who looks like a dwarf until you get within 10 feet. But does not have dwarf abilities.

I really don't see how they're saying you can't play something with dark skin? The PhB has that and they seem great with the PhB. And since the poster was ok with reskinning and there are PhB races with tusks and different color skins, I don't understand that complaint either.

 

[Cadence]

If I were to look outside of the D&D system, I have trouble finding any character who would have a high strength and low constitution or low constitution and high strength.

Could Goliath (of David and Goliath fame) possibly be portrayed as a high STR but low CON? Cribbing from a reddit thread, a power lifter who couldn't do cardio would be like that? A big strong fighter who always needed to ride on the wagon instead of marching? Isn't there a character in My Hero Academia who can essentially never hurt anyone with their attacks but is almost impossible to put down? Is the "nerd who can take a beating" a trope?

Similarly, you could have a melee based character with high intellect who makes very precise strikes that are designed to sever the tendons and arteries-- because they are so knowledgeable about how a body works that even if they cannot strike as fast or as hard as another fighter, their understanding of various creature's biology allows them to basically dissect their opponents on the battlefield.

How does knowing where to hit the other person let them actually execute the correct hit? Isn't that hand-eye-coordination, which would be DEX and not INT? I can see making the damage bonus for back-stab be INT and not STR. Would an INT fighter get back-stab instead of some of the other feats?

I'm all for expanding the usefulness of the abilities in more circumstances. That feels better to me than getting rid of them.

Would your INT "fighter" lack all of STR, DEX, and CON?

The idea D&D has always had though is that is prescribes a "correct path" and so naturally all characters align to that path and dismiss any concepts that lie outside of it. As a result, in any given edition, all characters have been far too similar.

I thought the idea would be that all the other concepts would show up in the thousands of splat books that would signal the impending arrival of a new edition. And also give everyone who hates min-maxing continually more to complain about

In D&D 5E-- every single character that exists, outside a couple classes, is dumb as a rock because Intelligence is hardly ever utilized and even the skills that are Intelligence-based require the DM to bend over backwards and create the whole adventure with the intent of them ever being usable and yet somehow still completable even if they are failed.

I've been lucky to usually have fellow players who put ability stats based on character conception instead of bonuses and DMs where the storyline outside of combat was a huge part of things.

What's the lowest INT someone can take in 5e if not rolling randomly? Labeling someone with an 8 Int (just below average) as "dumb as a rock" seems awfully ableist for a thread on inclusivity.

 

[GreenTengu]

lsn't that only talking about wanting to play things with the abilities of the monster races in the MM instead of just the ones in the PhB. That it's focusing on abilities seems clear from their third paragraph that is about reskinning between the PhB races for those who don't like a particular racial ability

Every edition has given characters a massive penalty for playing an "orc" or "drow" or "hobgoblin" or "goblin", so how could you possibly justify this statement? Having such "monster abilities" has never been an advantage, it has already always been punished and there are at least three posters who have indicated it should be punished even more.

If it was "Orcs and half-orcs use the same profile" or "there is no statistical difference between playing a dark skinned drow and a light-skinned high elf" or "if you want to play a goblin, just make the character a halfling with an outsider or such background or if you want to play a hobgoblin, just make a human character with high constitution."

That would be superior to any system in any D&D edition. I cannot believe anyone has ever played those races for mechanical advantage.

Most people play those because they want to play dark-skinned elves or green-skinned tusked tribal people or outcasts from a samurai/spartan/nazi culture who want to forge a new path for their people or little yellow/green skinned children who no one expects much from so exceed expectations just by trying.

And then there is my issue with non-dexterity focused Rogues being screwed over when the las should be functional for intelligence, wisdom and charisma focused non-magical characters based on the various failed sub-classes, and intelligence and strength being dump stats to most characters in 5E.

I just want a system where whatever character you dream up, they can be cool. I am fine with accepting this as the "lesser" version.

 

[Cadence]

Most people play those because they want to play dark-skinned elves or green-skinned tusked tribal people or outcasts from a samurai/spartan/nazi culture who want to forge a new path for their people or little yellow/green skinned children who no one expects much from so exceed expectations just by trying.

The post you specifically referred me to was literally fine with reskinning, wasn't it?

Whatever penalties there are for playing drow doesn't seem to stop many people playing them, do they? Are the monster races for 5e that weaker than the actual ones? (Didn't PF try to balance them all out, for example? That feels essentially D&D to me). I think monster races usually weren't played in a lot of the games I've been in because they didn't seem to really fit. I had fun with a Bugbear once.

I just want a system where whatever character you dream up, they can be cool. I am fine with accepting this as the "lesser" version.

That's always struck me as the place where you write up your idea for a sub-class and present it to the DM. Hopefully most of the ideas will be run with. And if one isn't (using CHR for a non-magical bonus on missile weapon attacks?), then maybe some ideas aren't actually that good.

 

[GreenTengu]

Could Goliath (of David and Goliath fame) possibly be portrayed as a high STR but low CON? Cribbing from a reddit thread, a power lifter who couldn't do cardio would be like that? A big strong fighter who always needed to ride on the wagon instead of marching? Isn't there a character in My Hero Academia who can essentially never hurt anyone with their attacks but is almost impossible to put down? Is the "nerd who can take a beating" a trope?



How does knowing where to hit the other person let them actually execute the correct hit? Isn't that hand-eye-coordination, which would be DEX and not INT? I can see making the damage bonus for back-stab be INT and not STR. Would an INT fighter get back-stab instead of some of the other feats?

I'm all for expanding the usefulness of the abilities in more circumstances. That feels better to me than getting rid of them.

Would your INT "fighter" lack all of STR, DEX, and CON?



I thought the idea would be that all the other concepts would show up in the thousands of splat books that would signal the impending arrival of a new edition. And also give everyone who hates min-maxing continually more to complain about



I've been lucky to usually have fellow players who put ability stats based on character conception instead of bonuses and DMs where the storyline outside of combat was a huge part of things.

What's the lowest INT someone can take in 5e if not rolling randomly? Labeling someone with an 8 Int (just below average) as "dumb as a rock" seems awfully ableist for a thread on inclusivity.

Would you really expect a power-lifter to drop after you punch them once in a fight? The David vs. Golliath story indicates more David being skillful and getting a critical hlt, but perhaps most of all is an arguement that a halfling and a golliath getting the same attack and damage bonus as each other if equally leveled.

The fact that my examples have at least allowed you to reconsider whether it is possible for a damage bonus to come from intelligence should at least allow you to consider-- if the ability for people to "roll up" out and out better characters is removed-- then why does it matter what mix of ability scores a character's attack bonus and damage bonus come from?

A little bit comes from their physical ability to hit harder, a little bit comes from control of their body, a little bit comes from their stamina, a little bit comes from their willpower to succeed and perceptional awareness, a little bit comes from their knowledge of tactics and biology, a little bit comes from their confidence and intimidation factor.

All ability score ought to factor in just a little bit. It shouldn't be so much trading A for B as much as A adds to B.

 

[Cadence]

The fact that my examples have at least allowed you to reconsider whether it is possible for a damage bonus to come from intelligence should at least allow you to consider-- if the ability for people to "roll up" out and out better characters is removed-- then why does it matter what mix of ability scores a character's attack bonus and damage bonus come from?

There are games that basically don't have statistics for much of anything and just have the players tell the story of what the characters are attempting, and there may or may not be some dice rolls on a standard table to see if it works, right? And there's nothing wrong with any of those systems. Unless for some reason you're trying to play D&D.

It might help if I knew what parts of D&D, as a set of RPG rules, that you actually like that aren't served better by other games that seem to let you do everything you want.

 

[GreenTengu]

Whatever penalties there are for playing drow doesn't seem to stop many people playing them, do they? Are the monster races for 5e that weaker than the actual ones? (Didn't PF try to balance them all out, for example? That feels essentially D&D to me). I think monster races usually weren't played in a lot of the games I've been in because they didn't seem to really fit. I had fun with a Bugbear once.

For more than half my life, I have wanted to play as a goblinoid race simply because I thought they looked like a fun extension of humanity without facing discrimination, but never have.

Every edition there is screwed me over in my desire to play a goblinoid character and told me that I am unwelcome. Never the players at the table, always the DM.

There are games that basically don't have statistics for much of anything and just have the players tell the story of what the characters are attempting, and there may or may not be some dice rolls on a standard table to see if it works, right? And there's nothing wrong with any of those systems. Unless for some reason you're trying to play D&D.

It might help if I knew what parts of D&D, as a set of RPG rules, that you actually like that aren't served better by other games that seem to let you do everything you want.

And this is why I think maybe it is best to give up on the D&D system. No amount of mitigatlng will change its fundamental nature. A whole new system is needed for a good adventure narrative that can represent any fantasy world.

 

[Cadence]

For more than half my life, I have wanted to play as a goblinoid race simply because I thought they looked like a fun extension of humanity without facing discrimination, but never have.

Every edition there is screwed me over in my desire to play a goblinoid character and told me that I am unwelcome. Never the players at the table, always the DM.

:-(

And this is why I think maybe it is best to give up on the D&D system. No amount of mitigatlng will change its fundamental nature. A whole new system is needed for a good adventure narrative that can represent any fantasy world.

One group I've played with has been into trying lots of different games as each person looks for the one they want. I hope you find one that does what you want and a group you play with can put into the rotation.