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

[Minigiant]

The continuing argument about fitting or shoehorning Dragonborn into old settings is WHY 5.5e should get a new setting designed for 5.5e.

 

[Azzy]

Sure, the real world only manages to support one sentient species.

Currently, yes. But that wasn't always the case. Our species overlapped with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and at least one "ghost species" (that we know of from genetics, but have no fossils for). The further back you go, the more homonin species there were. That we're the only one that survived (well, we interbred with others, so they aren't entirely gone) was not something that was fated.

 

[Azzy]

Why exactly do we believe being dwarven means something in Middle Earth? Because dwarves played notable roles in the foreground - they were protagonists/supporting protagonists for the main narrative - so the world-builder (in this case Tolkien) made sure we had some of that information. Wouldn't the same be true for any PC created for a campaign? Would the DM and player work to ground the PC in specifics that would be relevant to them and give them meaning?

Character creation is best when the player and DM work together.

 

[Corinnguard]

The continuing argument about fitting or shoehorning Dragonborn into old settings is WHY 5.5e should get a new setting designed for 5.5e.

How many playable species were shoehorned into the Forgotten Realms in each edition of D&D? And how many of these species were argued over by the fans before the 4e Dragonborn were introduced to the Realms?

 

[Minigiant]

How many playable species were shoehorned into the Forgotten Realms in each edition of D&D? And how many of these species were argued over by the fans before the 4e Dragonborn were introduced to the Realms?

That is besides the point.

The point is rather that discussed how to create a setting that has a Dragonborn Empire and Goliath Kingdoms entrenched in its style, history, and gameplay, we are spending pages after pages arguing how to put favorite old setting can squeeze in Dragonborn somewhere or find proof that it did.

My home table has a species majority nation (or Four) for each 5.5e PHB species. Each species has hand in shaping the setting. If you play any of the PHB species, you have a history for your character has to deal with.

Same with every class. Some subclasses are actual organizations with power who carved the setting's history and current diplomacy.

Being a Dragonborn Sorcerer or Tielfing Warlock means something there. When people learn this about you, you have stereotypes to embrace, deny, or subvert.

Not so hard to say WOTC should have attempted this instead before little old me made my own.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, to be honest, you'll get no real argument from me. I've long argued for Halflings and gnomes to be ousted from the PHB in favor of more popular options that are actually going to be used in settings. Saying that it's okay for the most popular options in the PHB to be given the same short shrift as the two least popular PHB options isn't exactly a winning argument.

I'm just saying, to the subject of the OP...nothing in the rules dictates that a player option needs to be common in a given Setting.

 

[Parmandur]

Incorrect. They are all from Tymanther as far as I know. I don't have the new book, so that might have changed. Going with 5e lore only, Tymanther is where they are all from.

They did change that: not only are not all Abeir-iriginating Dragonborn not necessarily from Tymanther, not all Dragonborn are even from Abeir. The book says there Toril native Dragonborn before the Spellplague that are still around, just they were rare and not terribly well known.