What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?

Sacrosanct

Legend
No, I'm not asking for a rule or mechanical bit or missing class or race. I think we all know how that turns out ;)

Instead, I'm asking what bit of lore or flavor/fluff from a previous edition to you prefer over how 5e has approached it?

For me, there are a couple:

1. I don't like the approach the did with gnolls and making them the whole demon tie in and whatever. I liked gnolls to be when they were fairly vanilla humanoid evil monsters because then it was easy to make each tribe unique without having a common background

2. I prefer kobolds to be dog faced, as they appeared in the 1e MM

3. I prefer paladins to be as in AD&D, when they fit what inspired the class. None of this evil/bad paladin stuff as a generic accepted class
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
No, I'm not asking for a rule or mechanical bit or missing class or race. I think we all know how that turns out ;)
Wait. I know the answer to this. What is ... a warlord, Alex?

Did I win?

Instead, I'm asking what bit of lore or flavor/fluff from a previous edition to you prefer over how 5e has approached it?

For me, there are a couple:

1. I don't like the approach the did with gnolls and making them the whole demon tie in and whatever. I liked gnolls to be when they were fairly vanilla humanoid evil monsters because then it was easy to make each tribe unique without having a common background

2. I prefer kobolds to be dog faced, as they appeared in the 1e MM

3. I prefer paladins to be as in AD&D, when they fit what inspired the class. None of this evil/bad paladin stuff as a generic accepted class
So, in response to your suggestions-

1. Eh, whatever. It's interesting enough in 5e. It's not like we lost anything. Do you really need to know their backstory to kill them for XP? ;)

2. Yes, if only to annoy dog-lovers. I am a dog-lover myself, I just like to annoy people.

3. I prefer Paladins to be at the bottom of the Nyr Dyv.


Okay, so I somewhat reject the premise, because the lore isn't really tight with the edition in 5e (you can always just ignore the gnoll stuff, right?).

So I would make that a more general comment- I want a more tight integration of fluff and mechanics. To make it explicit.

I mean, say what you will about the tenets of the AD&D Paladin, dude, at least it's an ethos.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
On the whole, most of the lore cohesion that 4e provided and that 5e backtracked on.

1. Primal Power (4E): Druids draw their power not from divine magic of the gods or the arcane magic of the cosmos, but from the primal power of the the material world and the spirits of nature.

2. Monk powers (i.e., ki) are psionic (4E)

3. Diabolic succubi/incubi (4E)

4. Demons as corrupted elemental spirits and primordials

5. The Dawn War

6. 4e Cosmology

7. "Unaligned" Angels

Also, stay away from my draconic kobolds!
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Honestly, I've enjoyed the lore of 5e for the most part. I think the extra effort they went through to understand their likely market this time paid off. Most enjoyable Monster Manual in years.
 

Gradine

Archivist
Basically all of the monster lore created for 4e that 5e abandoned. I guess that would necessarily include the Dawn War and the Elemental Chaos.
 

aco175

Adventurer
I do not mind kobolds pushed to dragons rather than dog-like. They needed a role since we have goblin already. Sort of like how gnomes are sidelined since we have dwarves. More so now that dwarves can cast mage spells.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I do not mind kobolds pushed to dragons rather than dog-like. They needed a role since we have goblin already. Sort of like how gnomes are sidelined since we have dwarves. More so now that dwarves can cast mage spells.
I don't think I'm following. Are you saying you don't mind kobolds going draconic since goblins existed already? But goblins aren't dog like. If anything, draconic kobolds are more like goblins now than before. I don't think there are any more monsters that are small dog like creatures yapping like kobolds were described in 1e.
 

MechaTarrasque

Adventurer
I like the idea of the primal power source more than the implementation in 4e: seriously, you could fight gods, but not primal spirits--that's just wrong.....

I miss the wider spectrum of good outsiders (and even rilmani for neutral).
 

alienux

Explorer
Having played since BECMI, I never really got caught up in the lore much. I've honestly not paid that much attention to it. There may be a few monster changes that I preferred in older editions, but not enough to think too much of it. I've always just mostly played the game and didn't keep up with different stories and settings.

It's kind of odd, since the two main gaming interests I have are D&D and Warhammer 40k (mostly Space Hulk related stuff). With D?&D I love every aspect of the game, but almost never read the novels (I've only ever read Darkwalker on Moonshae and the graphic novel versions of Drizzt), but with 40k, I don't play the game much (other than Space Hulk), but I love reading 40k books.
 

Monayuris

Explorer
I like the lore of druids where there are a limited number of high level druids. In order to advance in a certain high level, you had to find and defeat one of that level and take his/her place in the hierarchy.

Kobolds are dog-faced.

I liked the assumption that the end game involved your character establishing some kind of stronghold or domain. It provides a way for your character to add its own legacy to the setting. Back when I was playing AD&D, I felt it was a real accomplishment when my ranger had the means to establish his own lodge and when he gained band of rangers to aid in protecting the nearby settlement.

In 1e, every DM was expected to create their own setting with its own flavor.

I wish that stayed.
Yes I agree. I wish Wizards would take a different approach to game. I know it'll never happen as they want to cash in on their marketing platform. I just would like to see Wizards engendering more of a DIY approach to the game instead of commoditising it.
 

Ralif Redhammer

Adventurer
With you on this. I will never play a paladin that isn’t LG. Murderhobo paladins are like nails on a chalkboard for me.

As for other fluff, I don’t miss too much. Maybe bearded dwarven women?


3. I prefer paladins to be as in AD&D, when they fit what inspired the class. None of this evil/bad paladin stuff as a generic accepted class
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
With you on this. I will never play a paladin that isn’t LG. Murderhobo paladins are like nails on a chalkboard for me.
Agreed. I mean, that's why paladins we so powerful. Because it was hard to qualify for one mechanically, and then you had to actually adhere to a code of ethos. If you wanted the power, then you had to follow the rules. Then the anti-paladin showed up in a Dragon magazine and suddenly everyone wanted to say "screw the role playing requirements, I want all that power and to be able to not follow any rules." Nevermind that the anti-paladin was never meant to be played by players...
 

jaelis

Explorer
I agree the 4e universe setup was pretty good, but so is Eberron and a lot of the old 2e settings. I like them better than the FR-centered lore of 5e, but I don't really feel like they are "gone." Still easy to use if you want. I actually kind of liked the more-or-less setting neutral take of 3e in that regard.

I do miss the lore associated with prestige classes/paths in 3e/4e. That was a nice way to bring in world-specific things to your character development.
 

Staffan

Adventurer
Primal power as distinct from arcane or divine.

Each setting having a self-contained cosmology, with the meta-settings having the option to intrude but only from their own point of view (I could see a Planescape or Spelljammer supplement including Eberron stuff. I don't want Eberron to include Planescape or Spelljammer stuff.)
 

Ralif Redhammer

Adventurer
And I wonder how many of those that played anti-paladins actually abided by the cowardice rules they were subject to...

Then the anti-paladin showed up in a Dragon magazine and suddenly everyone wanted to say "screw the role playing requirements, I want all that power and to be able to not follow any rules." Nevermind that the anti-paladin was never meant to be played by players...
 

MechaTarrasque

Adventurer
Primal power as distinct from arcane or divine.

Each setting having a self-contained cosmology, with the meta-settings having the option to intrude but only from their own point of view (I could see a Planescape or Spelljammer supplement including Eberron stuff. I don't want Eberron to include Planescape or Spelljammer stuff.)
I figure there are planescape and spelljammer types popping up in Eberron, but they aren't PC's or archliches or armies of githyanki, but wholesalers buying crates of magical flashlights or similar things, so very few every know about them. If the Eberron natives ever knew the truth, they might try to get into the multiversal commerce game, so they keep their true nature a secret (and they would be willing to do very bad things to keep the secret). And since magical flashlights are national security or anything and their gold is good, no one has any reason to investigate.....
 

Advertisement

Top