D&D 5E Recent Errata clarifications

[Scribe]

Oooh, keel over means die? I thought it meant something like getting a hump (is hump the word?) or something like that.

Means fall down, but commonly meant 'fall over dead', at least in my neck of the woods.

 

[ersatzphil]

Means fall down, but commonly meant 'fall over dead', at least in my neck of the woods.

In your defense, I've almost always heard it used as "keeled over and died".

 

[Bolares]

Means fall down, but commonly meant 'fall over dead', at least in my neck of the woods.

Ah gotcha. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Scribe]

In your defense, I've almost always heard it used as "keeled over and died".

I wonder if it doesnt originate in capsized boats... lol english, you are a mess.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s definitely not the worst of both worlds. The more alignment there is the worst it gets! If you like it you are playing wrong! /s

The Angry GM wrote an article on why 5e doesn’t need alignment back during the D&D Next playtest. It basically said, alignment doesn’t actually do anything in 5e, you can completely ignore it and it won’t have any negative impact on your game whatsoever, and because of that, WotC should really just remove it. There’s no longer any point to having it in the game, so why bother trying to pretend alignment is even a thing any more.

Then he went on to explain why he loves alignment and how he uses it, and how he thought it could best be used, if it’s used.

It was a pretty great article, and I very much agree. Either have alignments actually do something, or don’t have it at all. Either would have been a strong choice that would each have taken the game in different directions. Trying to pretend alignment is a thing without having it impact the game in any meaningful way was not a strong choice. It was a weak attempt to please everyone that has always been doomed to end up pleasing no one.

 

[Bolares]

The Angry GM wrote an article on why 5e doesn’t need alignment back during the D&D Next playtest. It basically said, alignment doesn’t actually do anything in 5e, you can completely ignore it and it won’t have any negative impact on your game whatsoever, and because of that, WotC should really just remove it. There’s no longer any point to having it in the game, so why bother trying to pretend alignment is even a thing any more.

Then he went on to explain why he loves alignment and how he uses it, and how he thought it could best be used, if it’s used.

It was a pretty great article, and I very much agree. Either have alignments actually do something, or don’t have it at all. Either would have been a strong choice that would each have taken the game in different directions. Trying to pretend alignment is a thing without having it impact the game in any meaningful way was not a strong choice. It was a weak attempt to please everyone that has always been doomed to end up pleasing no one.

I get your point, and if I didn’t hate alignment so much I’d probably agree. But as is to me it goes No alignment > vestigial alignment > playing another game > fully supported alignment

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that would probably make me stop playing D&D. I barely tolerate Alignment as it is, and absolutely hate the nonsensical and redundant Great Wheel Cosmology. If D&D had a flood of more alignment in the game, with restrictions on classes/subclasses, spells, and races, I would leave the hobby.

Couldn't you just not use it? You know, like you're telling people who like alignment to just add it back in themselves? Giving up gaming altogether seems a bit extreme.

 

[Scribe]

And it's equivalent in earlier editions, yes.

If thats what we are going for, those definitions are exceedingly poor, and far too short to provide sufficient guidance, which again goes back to what I have said quite a few times.

Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, these things need real definitions if folks are going to try and use them, and as @Charlaquin mentions, a whole system needs to be leaned into, to get any meaningful value out of it.

 

[Bolares]

Couldn't you just not use it? You know, like you're telling people who like alignment to just add it back in themselves? Giving up gaming altogether seems a bit extreme.

If it’s as well integrated as scribe wanted, it’s not that easy to remove it from the game. Probably a lot of lore and game elements will be tied to it.

 

[Scribe]

If it’s as well integrated as scribe wanted, it’s not that easy to remove it from the game. Probably a lot of lore and game elements will be tied to it.

And to be clear.

1. It isnt.
2. It never will be again.

I'm not asking you all to be blessed with what we had in 3.5/PF1 after all. I'm simply asking that what little is left, not be removed.