D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

[Remathilis]

Oh wait, ok so you want fantasy 5e but with NO 5e classes in it. Not "there isn't a place for paladins, sorcerers, rangers and clerics in this setting," you don't want ANY of the standard DnD classes?

Hm. That's a thinker.
Why do you want that? To get away from the DnD legacy entirely but stay fantasy? Reinvent the wheel?

No, just some could be gone or radically altered. It's probably easier to drop them all and start fresh than to only do some, IMHO.

 

[Remathilis]

so you're asking about a setting that defines itself primarilly by the absence of certain standard fantasy classes? rather than the addition of them and how that affects the world/what about the world caused those classes to not occur?

a world without clerics and paladins says something about the divinity of that setting
a world without pure martials says something about the omnipresence of magic in that setting
a world without druid, ranger and barbarian says something about the wilderness or lack thereof in the setting

these are all interesting worlds to explore and discover the stories of, but they can't properly exist if all 12 of the baseline classes perpetually exist in all settings.

I mean, that's basically what Dark Sun did. It's a setting that tables a bunch of classes for either being arcane (when magic has gone haywire) or divine (where there are no gods) and then radically changes the remaining few to fit that design. No bards, sorcerers paladins, or warlocks, highly changed clerics (if allowed) and wizards, and that jury is out on monks.

Could any company sell a product where the possible classes are fighter, rogue, barbarian, druid, and highly altered cleric and wizard? Could it even further limit subclasses so that there is no eldritch knight or arcane trickster for example. Even with a psionics system to do a lot of heavy lifting (no small task) you have a lot of game mechanics in classes alone to design. And that's just classes, we've not touched spells, gear and feats.

Which I think is why no 3pp has done this, unless they are going out of genre or using an IP. And if it's a hurdle to a 3pp Kickstarter, it's a hurdle to WotC. Ultimately, I think if we ever did see a Dark Sun, you're going to see all 12 PHB classes represented, even paladin.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Even aside the Dark Sun, I feel "every setting must have everything" is a poisonous idea that thwarts creativity and I really wish we could abandon it.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I mean, that's basically what Dark Sun did. It's a setting that tables a bunch of classes for either being arcane (when magic has gone haywire) or divine (where there are no gods) and then radically changes the remaining few to fit that design. No bards, sorcerers paladins, or warlocks, highly changed clerics (if allowed) and wizards, and that jury is out on monks.

Could any company sell a product where the possible classes are fighter, rogue, barbarian, druid, and highly altered cleric and wizard? Could it even further limit subclasses so that there is no eldritch knight or arcane trickster for example. Even with a psionics system to do a lot of heavy lifting (no small task) you have a lot of game mechanics in classes alone to design. And that's just classes, we've not touched spells, gear and feats.

Which I think is why no 3pp has done this, unless they are going out of genre or using an IP. And if it's a hurdle to a 3pp Kickstarter, it's a hurdle to WotC. Ultimately, I think if we ever did see a Dark Sun, you're going to see all 12 PHB classes represented, even paladin.

I think monks could fit with in darksun but only if the designers have to work with me as I like monk and can see what it must become to be truly great.
I had seen someone say Lynch complained that too much of dunes source material was "kung fu in the desert" hence the tech in that version, but the reverse would fit darksun well as with weapon and armour tech decaying decent unarmed combat would be worth a fortune.

the change is for setting buy-in, if everything works then why would it be so miserable thus to me cutting gods and making arcane magic toxic is how you push the setting towards ruin.
I doubt 3pp does it more out of lack of drive or vision, absence does not make something sellable but absence can be necessary to make something work, absence is like the foil that makes what it is selling you brighter.
although I have heard a game sell itself on "no elves"

Even aside the Dark Sun, I feel "every setting must have everything" is a poisonous idea that thwarts creativity and I really wish we could abandon it.

it does sound like there might be a solid middle ground on which innovation could be found.

 

[TwoSix]

What I would be looking to see is:
A fantasy RPG setting
That's 5e/D&D compatible
That isn't based on an existing media IP
And doesn't have a place for the twelve PHB class archetypes in it.

Because most of the ones I'm familiar with do. I haven't seen one which doesn't have clerics or has completely redesigned the warlock or who replaced the sorcerer with an alchemist or something. I'm sure there are some, but most of the big ones I'm familiar with kept the barbarian to wizard list and added.

Which is why I asked if there are any 3pp settings that pull the Dark Sun trick of having only some of the PHB archetypes but not all. The only ones I could think of are either not in the genre, tied to a non-D&D based IP, or both. If it's the place where 3pp can shine by redefining the class list, where are they?

Can't think of one, and I've seen a fair amount of 3pp. The closest I've seen is some "total mods" of 5e based on Warcraft, which only used races and classes from the MMO. But that violates your "no existing IP" rule.

I would love to see a game that just kept fighters and rogues, and then rebuilt everything else for an entirely different cosmology.

 

[Hussar]

Even aside the Dark Sun, I feel "every setting must have everything" is a poisonous idea that thwarts creativity and I really wish we could abandon it.

But, that's the problem. If you create a setting with no (insert class(es) here), then any group where someone wants to play that class is not going to want to play that setting. Plus, the second that you say that there are no (insert class(es) here) you have players who will absolutely insist on subverting that and want to play that class. PLUS, you have players who have payed for this or that supplement and now you're telling them that they can't use that supplement (or parts thereof) because in this setting (insert class(es) here) don't exist.

This is a REALLY hard sell.

I mean, I just watched two of my four long term players (as in they've been gaming with me for about three or four years) walk out the door because I insisted on no core casters in a short term campaign (Phandelver - so, what, two, three months?). I basically had to rebuild my group because of it.

I can totally see a real resistance to any setting that tries to remove (insert class(es) here)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, that's the problem. If you create a setting with no (insert class(es) here), then any group where someone wants to play that class is not going to want to play that setting. Plus, the second that you say that there are no (insert class(es) here) you have players who will absolutely insist on subverting that and want to play that class. PLUS, you have players who have payed for this or that supplement and now you're telling them that they can't use that supplement (or parts thereof) because in this setting (insert class(es) here) don't exist.

This is a REALLY hard sell.

I mean, I just watched two of my four long term players (as in they've been gaming with me for about three or four years) walk out the door because I insisted on no core casters in a short term campaign (Phandelver - so, what, two, three months?). I basically had to rebuild my group because of it.

I can totally see a real resistance to any setting that tries to remove (insert class(es) here)

Right. And that's the attitude that is the problem. To me it comes across just as childish petulance. Different setting are supposed to be different and you don't need to play the same bloody character in every game.

 

[Mind of tempest]

But, that's the problem. If you create a setting with no (insert class(es) here), then any group where someone wants to play that class is not going to want to play that setting. Plus, the second that you say that there are no (insert class(es) here) you have players who will absolutely insist on subverting that and want to play that class. PLUS, you have players who have payed for this or that supplement and now you're telling them that they can't use that supplement (or parts thereof) because in this setting (insert class(es) here) don't exist.

This is a REALLY hard sell.

I mean, I just watched two of my four long term players (as in they've been gaming with me for about three or four years) walk out the door because I insisted on no core casters in a short term campaign (Phandelver - so, what, two, three months?). I basically had to rebuild my group because of it.

I can totally see a real resistance to any setting that tries to remove (insert class(es) here)

would it be better to just not mention those classes or call them optional cannon?

I do not get the human drive to subvert the rules on a whim.

what is a non-core caster?

resistance is to be expected but why is it so high?

Right. And that's the attitude that is a problem. To me it comes across just as childish petulance. Different setting are supposed to be different and you don't need to play the same bloody character in every game.

I can understand if a player loves both a set race and class and would be turned off a setting without either but few people are that focused so what makes people do this?

 

[Hussar]

Right. And that's the attitude that is a problem. To me it comes across just as childish petulance. Different setting are supposed to be different and you don't need to play the same bloody character in every game.

Oh, hey, you'll get no argument from me.

But, I do know that I approach chargen from a very different perspective from the player's I've gamed with over the years. Most players, IME, will create a character, then try to shoehorn that character into the campaign with pretty much zero thought about the campaign, expecting that whatever the DM has planned will be generic enough that their character will be able to fit in no matter what.

I've rarely, if ever, seen a player think about how the character will fit in at the table and in the campaign, when creating a character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, hey, you'll get no argument from me.

But, I do know that I approach chargen from a very different perspective from the player's I've gamed with over the years. Most players, IME, will create a character, then try to shoehorn that character into the campaign with pretty much zero thought about the campaign, expecting that whatever the DM has planned will be generic enough that their character will be able to fit in no matter what.

I've rarely, if ever, seen a player think about how the character will fit in at the table and in the campaign, when creating a character.

Thankfully my experiences are quite different.