D&D 5E (2014) Recent Errata clarifications

[TerraDave]

They are saying the real change is moving to more explicit support for multiple settings.

So its really a 2E direction they are moving in. We could all panic about that now.

 

[Scribe]

You don't have to yuck my yum.

Not doing that in the least. Unless your name is Ray, I'm not making a comment directed towards you or what you like at all.

In fact, I take offense and you claiming this is what I'm doing. I've REPEATEDLY over the top said people are free to do what they like, and I've been REPEATEDLY over the top told that I'm wrong, and many other things that dont bare repeating.

So nope.

His statement is..humorous to say the least, and I'll make note of it, because what they (Wizards) are saying, and doing, and NOT saying, do not line up.

 

[humble minion]

Isn't there an upcoming D&D kids book where the heroine has a cute friendly mimic sidekick, among other critters? A bit of variation like that is a good thing, and I can certainly see the argument that having a single descriptive culture for a monster listed in the MM or Volo's or whatever might be seen to discourage that.

What they SHOULD have done of course it provide a list of possible ways each critter could be incorporated into a campaign world, like the setting books provide lists of, for instance, suggested adventure hooks in a location. You don't have to use one, or all, or any of the options WotC provides, they're just there for inspiration.

But to do that for a large number of critters from the MM or Volo's would require a lot more work from writers, and WotC was never going to pay for that for the sake of 'errata'.

 

[pukunui]

People failing to read, shouldnt be a reason to change this.

Why not? What difference does it make to you?

 

[Scribe]

Why not? What difference does it make to you?

Long story short, the removal of a suggested default, is a removal of something I want. Literally thousands of posts have been spilled over this, across probably dozens of threads.

 

[pukunui]

Long story short, the removal of a suggested default, is a removal of something I want. Literally thousands of posts have been spilled over this, across probably dozens of threads.

What is it about having a suggested default alignment that is so important to you? (I don't have the time or the inclination to read your thousands of posts on the topic, so the TL;DR version will suffice. Sorry.)

In my games, I've been paying less and less attention to alignment recently. I just find it too restrictive. I put more emphasis on the personal characteristics (ideals, bonds, etc) instead, as I find they provide a more nuanced look at a character's morals, beliefs, etc.

 

[Scribe]

What is it about having a suggested default alignment that is so important to you? (I don't have the time or the inclination to read your thousands of posts on the topic, so the TL;DR version will suffice. Sorry.)

TLDR: I enjoy systems, tropes, stereotypes (so there actually IS something to subvert its actually laughable as in I laughed out loud, he mentioned this...) and Alignment, because it is a system which ties into Cosmology, which is ANOTHER system.

 

[pukunui]

TLDR: I enjoy systems, tropes, stereotypes (so there actually IS something to subvert its actually laughable as in I laughed out loud, he mentioned this...) and Alignment, because it is a system which ties into Cosmology, which is ANOTHER system.

The PHB describes dwarves as being "solid and enduring like the mountains they love". They "respect the traditions of their clans ... and don't abandon those traditions lightly." Devotion to the dwarven gods is a big part of dwarven tradition. Dwarven ideals include "industrious labor, skill in battle, and devotion to the forge".

Dwarves are also "determined and loyal, true to their word, and decisive in action, sometimes to the point of stubbornness. Many dwarves have a strong sense of justice, and they are slow to forget wrongs they have suffered."

Is that not enough to tell you that most dwarves are lawful good? Is that not enough to be able to play against type by making a dwarf who doesn't respect the dwarven gods or who doesn't respect dwarven tradition? One who is indecisive, not skilled in battle, unreliable, etc?

Do you really need a little sentence saying "Dwarves are usually lawful good" when you've got all of the above?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not doing that in the least. Unless your name is Ray, I'm not making a comment directed towards you or what you like at all.

You don't see how saying stuff like "Plausible Deniability", "they're getting rid of the stereotypes and making these types of characters less interesting", and implying that that these changes are unnecessary could possibly be something that someone else would want to rebut against? You've made several posts in this thread and the other locked one talking about how much you dislike the errata, think it was unnecessary, and a bunch of overly hyperbolic about the direction of D&D.

I can't defend an idea because I'm not the one that made it? 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.

In fact, I take offense and you claiming this is what I'm doing. I've REPEATEDLY over the top said people are free to do what they like, and I've been REPEATEDLY over the top told that I'm wrong, and many other things that dont bare repeating.

If you take offense because I said you were mischaracterizing the direction of the game and what Winninger said, that's on you. Sorry anyways.

Yes, you have said that people are free to do whatever they want. I never accused you otherwise. However, the repeated harping of hyperbole and flat out bad-faith characterizations of the changes in this Errata do make it seem like you are "yucking" the "yum" of others that like these changes (including me).

So nope.

His statement is..humorous to say the least, and I'll make note of it, because what they (Wizards) are saying, and doing, and NOT saying, do not line up.

It depends on how you interpret their actions. Some people read into their actions where it almost definitely meant nothing other than a changing in terms for harmless reasons (Pixie/Fairy Dust, Brothels, etc). There's been a lot of chasing shadows and overreactions to quite a few of these changes that probably shouldn't be controversial at all.

So, believe whatever you want and play however you want, but I have gotten the general vibe recently from the people that have been endlessly criticizing this most recent errata of a "yuck to your yum". You may not have intended it or realized it, but I do find it standoffish and just wanted to let you (and others) realize in case you hadn't.

 

[Scribe]

Do you really need a little sentence saying "Dwarves are usually lawful good" when you've got all of the above?

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