D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[TiQuinn]

This seems like an irrelevant question: there were no dwarf wizards because that is the way it was, regardless of the reasoning. adding dwarf wizards required a change of design intent, and that is how we end up at the point of concern.

It’s not irrelevant. There was no real reason given in the lore of the settings for why demihumans had these limitations. It was simply a rule of the system. Once the rules of the system changed, the settings updated to follow the rules.

 

[Remathilis]

I mean....I dont think people want all those settings. I dont want MTG settings at all.

I think that if Wizards is going to aim for a gothic/horror setting, then they have 2 choices that are correct.

1. Ravenloft, without a bunch of changes.
2. A new setting.

Their constant attempts at splitting the difference have been really not that great for a lot of people. Granted, they have been fine for a lot of people too. Thats the internet for you.

I dont think we need a new Gothic setting, a new Dragon setting, or a new X genre setting if they already have those in the stable.

I think what we need, is a cohesive setting that is fresh and new for the given edition (5.5, 6.0, whatever) and then IF they want to bring older settings to the new edition?

Do it without retcons and changes.

So every edition you throw out all the lore and start fresh? That's IP suicide! I understand you hate D&D, but you're asking an irrational design choice to appease the minuscule amount of player who care that there are no monks on Krynn.

Take that to the next level. Elves have changed from edition to edition, so every rather than updating the elf in the PHB, they should make a new race to put in the PHB instead. Same with classes. Paladins aren't Lawful Good? Make a new class to replace them with. Ranger no longer gets magic user spells? New class. We can keep going. Capped the damage on fireball in 2e? Make a new fire spell. Sorry, The Lore is sacrosanct, if you are going to change anything, make a new one.

I look forward to playing a Xarfell fyrepriest on Gnimbkedoon in 6e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Between Realms threads and Dark.Sun speculation, I am more and more convinced that every edition of D&D needs a(t least one) bespoke setting. 5E never really got one -- it experimented with MtG settings, but there was no Dragonlance or Eberron if you understand my meaning.

Instead of shoehorning all the 5.5 mechanics and species and vibes into old settings, WotC should design a setting especially FOR 5.5E and it's target market.

Can they?

I am not trying to threadcrap here. I'm genuinely questioning whether it is possible to construct a setting that both has an identity of its own, and is also fully "the 5e setting". Because the whole point of 5e was to have as little individual identity as possible--to not be any specific thing, so that you would never snag on anything that would remind you it isn't YOUR specific thing. Obviously, it couldn't avoid having some elements that distinguish it, but they're pretty minimal, not really something I would consider the foundation of a setting.

5e's nature is "don't rock the boat". Can that make a setting?

I actually think 5e has its own setting. Kind of. It’s just an extremely broad meta-setting, in which all the various D&D (and some MTG) worlds are subsettings within. WotC calls it “the multiverse,” and many fans have observed that its metaphysics and cosmological rules are kind of a hybrid of Planescape and Spelljammer. But over the course of 5e’s lifecycle, some unique details of this setting have emerged. The idea of the First World is the most obvious of these, but there’s also, like, the origin story behind the Deck of Many Things with Asteria and Euryale. The whole Radiant Citadel, etc.

Is that "a setting" though? That's like saying "Marvel, all of Marvel, every Elseworld, every alternate timeline, ALL of it" is "a setting". That has like seventeen different variations of every single character, mutually contradictory timelines (which have been repeatedly destroyed, recombined, recreated, redestroyed, re-recombined, re-recreated, re-redestroyed, etc., etc.)

Certainly, any specific world/timeline/universe of Marvel (or DC) would qualify as "a setting". But when you crack open the full-on out-and-out Multiverse, you inherently wash out all the elements that make something "a setting", at least in my view. Spelljammer avoids this because it isn't actually a multiverse--it's just a setup where instead of "star systems" you have "crystal spheres", going all Ptolemaic. There aren't infinitely many variations of Toril or Oerth all equally real and persistent. There's a crystal sphere for Toril, a sphere for Oerth, individual and inaccessible spheres for Athas and Eberron, etc.

When literally everything is true, you can say anything and always be correct, for at least some corner of the Multiverse. That doesn't look like a "setting" to me. It looks like a container that you can stuff settings into.

 

[Charlaquin]

So hypothetically, people would be happier with 5e having Innistrad instead of Ravenloft, Tarkir instead of Dragonlance, Dominaria instead of Greyhawk and Avishkar instead of Eberron because those settings were designed prior to Goliath being in the PHB? And next edition we will have a new horror setting, a new dragon setting, a new kitchen sink setting, etc?

Sure. Right.

(All MTG settings used as examples, not actual replacement)

Err… no, I believe the suggestion is for one setting designed with 5e’s worldbuilding implications in mind, not for all settings to be replaced with ones that have more species.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is that "a setting" though? That's like saying "Marvel, all of Marvel, every Elseworld, every alternate timeline, ALL of it" is "a setting". That has like seventeen different variations of every single character, mutually contradictory timelines (which have been repeatedly destroyed, recombined, recreated, redestroyed, re-recombined, re-recreated, re-redestroyed, etc., etc.)

Certainly, any specific world/timeline/universe of Marvel (or DC) would qualify as "a setting". But when you crack open the full-on out-and-out Multiverse, you inherently wash out all the elements that make something "a setting", at least in my view. Spelljammer avoids this because it isn't actually a multiverse--it's just a setup where instead of "star systems" you have "crystal spheres", going all Ptolemaic. There aren't infinitely many variations of Toril or Oerth all equally real and persistent. There's a crystal sphere for Toril, a sphere for Oerth, individual and inaccessible spheres for Athas and Eberron, etc.

When literally everything is true, you can say anything and always be correct, for at least some corner of the Multiverse. That doesn't look like a "setting" to me. It looks like a container that you can stuff settings into.

It’s a setting in a very vague sense of the word, but it’s probably more accurately described as a meta-setting, or like, a setting framework. Which I do agree is meaningfully different than what we usually mean when we say “setting” in an RPG context. But, as you observed,

5e's nature is "don't rock the boat". Can that make a setting?

Not really, no. That’s why I pointed to its vague multiverse framework as the closet thing 5e has to its own setting.

 

[Hussar]

There should be a setting where dragonborn, tieflings, and goliaths are major species in the settings history because they are official species in the players handbook

There should be an official setting where all 12 of the official classes are written into the lore of the world as aspects of the setting.

There should be a setting where the DM can loopk in the book and tell the players where the Goliath psy warriors come from.

Really, I think this says it all right here. The problem with so many of the earlier settings is that 5 has added a LOT of options on the player side that have serious world building implications - new races being a prime example - that the older settings largely ignore. Dragonborn, despite being very popular, are not built into any of the settings. Like, at all. You look at the Adventure Path modules from WOTC and things like Tieflings and Dragonborn and artificers and various other elements might as well not exist.

A setting which actually addresses directly the PHB is not exactly an outlandish concept. I mean, good grief, that's what we got in 3e and 4e. Over ten years into 5e and we still barely see dragonborn or tiefling NPC's in modules. Is there a dragonborn town anywhere on the Sword Coast? Village? Pueblo? Anything?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There should be a setting where dragonborn, tieflings, and goliaths are major species in the settings history because they are official species in the players handbook

There should be an official setting where all 12 of the official classes are written into the lore of the world as aspects of the setting.

There should be a setting where the DM can loopk in the book and tell the players where the Goliath psy warriors come from.

I mean, there is one. It just came from The Edition That Must Not Be Named.

 

[zakael19]

Really, I think this says it all right here. The problem with so many of the earlier settings is that 5 has added a LOT of options on the player side that have serious world building implications - new races being a prime example - that the older settings largely ignore. Dragonborn, despite being very popular, are not built into any of the settings. Like, at all. You look at the Adventure Path modules from WOTC and things like Tieflings and Dragonborn and artificers and various other elements might as well not exist.

A setting which actually addresses directly the PHB is not exactly an outlandish concept. I mean, good grief, that's what we got in 3e and 4e. Over ten years into 5e and we still barely see dragonborn or tiefling NPC's in modules. Is there a dragonborn town anywhere on the Sword Coast? Village? Pueblo? Anything?

Again, Exandria does this, especially Wildemount. It’s why I think it’s the most “5e” of extant WOTC published stuff.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Really, I think this says it all right here. The problem with so many of the earlier settings is that 5 has added a LOT of options on the player side that have serious world building implications - new races being a prime example - that the older settings largely ignore. Dragonborn, despite being very popular, are not built into any of the settings. Like, at all. You look at the Adventure Path modules from WOTC and things like Tieflings and Dragonborn and artificers and various other elements might as well not exist.

A setting which actually addresses directly the PHB is not exactly an outlandish concept. I mean, good grief, that's what we got in 3e and 4e. Over ten years into 5e and we still barely see dragonborn or tiefling NPC's in modules. Is there a dragonborn town anywhere on the Sword Coast? Village? Pueblo? Anything?

To the best of my knowledge, there's only one such adventure--and it's actually set in Tymanther, meaning, the only major dragonborn representation we're getting is in the nation where dragonborn live.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Again, Exandria does this, especially Wildemount. It’s why I think it’s the most “5e” of extant WOTC published stuff.

I personally would not call it a WotC setting though. It's also not exactly a "5e" setting in its worldbuilding, because that worldbuilding is actually built off of one specific prior setting, with a dash of another: specifically, it's built off of 4e's Points of Light setting, with a dollop of Golarion added in for spice (e.g. Sarenrae/"Raei" to avoid licensing issues). The entire pantheon is very specifically the 4e pantheon (excluding Sarenrae), and the whole "Prime Deities"/"Betrayer Gods" thing is quite clearly Mr. Mercer's rebuild of the Dawn War to suit his own interests and campaign ideas.

So...if Exandria is the closest thing to a "5e" setting, it's sort of admitting that 5e had to steal 4e's lunch and file off the serial numbers. Again.