D&D 5E WotC On Tasha, Race, Alignment: A Several-Year Plan

WotC spoke to the site Dicebreaker about D&D race and alignment, and their plans for the future. On of the motivations of the changes [character customization] in Tasha's Cauldron was to decouple race from class. The 'tightrope' between honouring legacy and freedom of character choice has not been effectively walked. Alignment is turning into a roleplaying tool, and will not be used to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
WotC spoke to the site Dicebreaker about D&D race and alignment, and their plans for the future.

pa0sjX8Wgx.jpg

  • On of the motivations of the changes [character customization] in Tasha's Cauldron was to decouple race from class.
  • The 'tightrope' between honouring legacy and freedom of character choice has not been effectively walked.
  • Alignment is turning into a roleplaying tool, and will not be used to describe entire cultures.
  • This work will take several years to fully implement.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The points brought up in this thread so far are why I am likely to stick to games that do not have Alignment and will most likely continue to push for campaign worlds that feature no intelligent race other than human.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pukunui

Legend
"I think it's worth pointing out that Jeremy is only talking about humanoids. He's not talking about removing built-in alignments for other kinds of creatures, like fiends."

Well then the solution is obvious! Just define creatures like Drow and Goblins as something other than humanoids. Perhaps define them as a subset of humanoids. Surely someone can think of a good term for that.

I see no pitfalls there.
Maybe. The game defines goblinoids as a type of humanoid, as it does with elves. So far there are only two playable races that aren't humanoid (the M:tG centaur and satyr, both of which are fey).

The point is, though, that they've already made drow and goblins playable. If it's a playable race, then it needs to be inclusive.

Unsure if this tangent is worth going down, but...clones mang! They're literally all the same! At least, from movies 1 to 3.
Those are the aptly named clone troopers. The stormtroopers are not clones. The newest trilogy even makes a point about how the First Order kidnaps children for the purpose of filling the ranks of their stormtrooper army.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
Clone isn’t a race. It’s just more of the same dude.
Right. And elves have dark vision and are dexterous because they have some similar genetics. They have less in common across elves than clones do...but same principle.
 


pukunui

Legend
One thing I think would help things is having monster entries for the traditional player races like dwarves and elves. As things are, it's too easy to default to goblins and orcs and such as enemies.
4e did.

And at least one playtest draft of the 5e MM did as well. It's a shame they got cut. That said, all of the generic NPCs in the back of the MM are human by default. You can either use them as is for other races or use the customizations from the DMG.
 



Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I'm all for retconning the racism and sexism out of DnD.

I like more character options as a general principle.

But when the Halfling takes a racial Strength bonus and the Minotaur does not, I'm out. Sorry, but that just makes no sense to me.

What? Someone can't play the scrawniest bull in the herd?

I think WOTC is walking away from the idea that entire races save from the PCs are the same 1-4 people over and over with social-economic-political status being the only other characteristic. This way PCs can truly feel special as their home races and cultures aren't full of cookie cutters by default.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top