D&D 5E Recent Errata clarifications

[Enevhar Aldarion]

By his own words, they deleted the "stock personality" for each monster. Sure sounds like changing essential nature to me. If the removal really wasn't about essentialism, then why do it?

"Stock Personality" is more stereotype and less essential nature. And since we are thankfully getting more inclusive and less bigoted, removing anything that feels or sounds like a stereotype is a good thing.

 

[Scribe]

Because unless I misread your post, what I like (the removal of racial alignments in the PHB) is definitely being "yucked" by the mischaracterization of them getting rid of racial stereotypes entirely.

Then you 'yuck my yum' and we...what?

 

[pukunui]

Yes, and I also want them to return the ASI they removed, so there is some mechanical weight behind that description.

They haven't (yet) removed any of the ASIs from the PHB races at least. The ability to change them is an option rule in Tasha's.

Nevertheless, I feel this is splitting hairs. I'm sorry that you feel dissatisfied by these changes. I think alignment has slowly been going the way of the dodo for some time, and these changes are yet another nail in its coffin. Resistance, at this point, is futile.

 

[Shiroiken]

What is it about having a suggested default alignment that is so important to you?

Not the OP, but biggest issue is there's no frame of reference for new players. Without giving the arch-typical view, new players and DMs won't understand anything about the races at all. Most setting books do not provided this information, unless it subverts the default, since it was assumed that players & DMs knew them. There's also nothing in the DMG is give guidance either, since the errata just removed information.

While I'm personally not a fan of the new direction, I understand it. However, this setup is a terrible decisions mid-edition. This is particularly important with a revised set of rules just around the corner, where they could completely rework the issue in a way that achieves their goals without throwing everything for a loop. Perhaps this is a way to get people used to the idea, but if this was the case they shouldn't have made such radical changes to the PHB (the other books aren't particularly relevant for newbies). The same objective could have been done by putting a larger disclaimer, since apparently no one reads the existing one (which created the same idiocy about alignment in the MM).

 

[Scribe]

They haven't (yet) removed any of the ASIs from the PHB races at least. The ability to change them is an option rule in Tasha's.

Nevertheless, I feel this is splitting hairs. I'm sorry that you feel dissatisfied by these changes. I think alignment has slowly been going the way of the dodo for some time, and these changes are yet another nail in its coffin. Resistance, at this point, is futile.

Fair, but 5.5 will. I'd put money on it.

Alignment has been getting phased out, and I'll resist it until its gone, at which point Wizards wont get another dollar.

 

[JEB]

I think alignment has slowly been going the way of the dodo for some time, and these changes are yet another nail in its coffin. Resistance, at this point, is futile.

I would have agreed with you after Van Richten's Guide, but there it was back in Fizban's. Not to mention that Winninger seemed to take pains to reassure folks that it was only suggested PC alignments that were going ("the only real changes related to alignment"...).

That said, we'll see what happens in 2024.

 

[pming]

What’s next, druids in metal armor?

1e: Custom made Wooden Armour...then Crystalbrittle....then Glassteel.


(no, I never did this or saw it in my game...but it was a "possibility" once your druid and the MU in the group made it to Ridiculous Level (18+, iirc... Crystalbrittle).

As for the rest of the "Errata Commentary"... shrug. I never use errata anyway; if something was 'broken', I already fixed it by the time errata came out. As for the future of 5e... I have current 5e and it's not going to disappear once the 'new version' comes out. Of course, talking to people online about it and saying "Well, yeah, Orcs are evil, so that would make sense"...and then having sixteen replies of "YOU'RE WRONG!!!" is going to make things... interesting.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pukunui]

Not the OP, but biggest issue is there's no frame of reference for new players. Without giving the arch-typical view, new players and DMs won't understand anything about the races at all.

This comes across as some serious hyperbole to me. How does removing one line that essentially says “Most creatures of this race are x alignment so you should probably make your PC that alignment too” make it so there’s no frame of reference?

I just quoted from the PHB entry on dwarves showing just how much frame of reference there is. I don’t feel like I need a “typically lawful good” label on dwarves to know that they are typically lawful good.

I think new players who take the time to read the race descriptions will be able to understand how those races typically work just fine without an officially suggested alignment tag.

While I'm personally not a fan of the new direction, I understand it. However, this setup is a terrible decisions mid-edition.

While I think “terrible” is going a bit too far, I will agree that these kind of changes at this point in the game’s life cycle are annoying. I would have preferred it if they’d left the big changes for the anniversary edition.

 

[JEB]

I just quoted from the PHB entry on dwarves showing just how much frame of reference there is. I don’t feel like I need a “typically lawful good” label on dwarves to know that they are typically lawful good.

I actually don't have a big problem with default PC race alignments going, as long as all the cultural stuff they do have remains in place to advise and inspire players.

That said, that single line is pretty useful for folks who don't want to read an essay and just want some keywords. So I figure, why not add a little nuance (to counter the folks that insist the line means you have to be that alignment) and otherwise leave it in place?

 

[pukunui]

I actually don't have a big problem with default PC race alignments going, as long as all the cultural stuff they do have remains in place to advise and inspire players.

Agreed. It feels to me like some people are acting like WotC has removed all the fluff. Removing the little suggested alignment section is not the same thing as removing all the fluff.

That said, that single line is pretty useful for folks who don't want to read an essay and just want some keywords. So I figure, why not add a little nuance (to counter the folks that insist the line means you have to be that alignment) and otherwise leave it in place?

Perhaps. But it’s clear WotC have drawn a line in the sand: they’re not going to ascribe a specific alignment (even if it’s only a suggestion) to any humanoid species in the game.