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

[Remathilis]

Kind of, yeah.

People dont want Gothic, they want Ravenloft? Then dont change Ravenloft.

The more the settings are bent towards the modern additions, the less those settings remain accurate to what people wanted in the first place, not that most of the new player base (supposedly) is even old enough to know what those old settings were about.

I mean people cannot even wrap their heads around the Dragonlance Pantheon and its behavior, its just outside of the context new players even understand.

So yeah, if Wizards is going to keep going back to the well of these old settings? Fine, but dont change them.

Its not like they could not also make NEW settings and tell NEW stories and let those things stand on their own without the cheap nostalgia pull.

Or maybe they cannot, I dont know.

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)

 

[bedir than]

Is it ever actually stated anywhere those things ‘aren’t for the normies’ or is that something you want to assume? honestly I think that would be a good concept to play up on in a ‘designed for 5e’ setting, that a dragonborn guard comes with elemental breath, temporary flight, athletics + perception proficiency and the alert feat.

Yes, because NPCs are not player characters. The character creation rules exist as rules targeting how Players create Characters

Creating a Character

D&D Beyond - Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Tools, Rules, Races, Classes, Items, Spells, Monsters, and More

www.dndbeyond.com

Additionally humanoid creature types are not created the same way

How to Use a Monster

D&D Beyond - Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Tools, Rules, Races, Classes, Items, Spells, Monsters, and More

www.dndbeyond.com

Finally, the entire section on how to create NPCs tells DMs to avoid using PC stat blocks, describes how to give unique abilities and never really touches on the PHB features for species, class, background, etc

2024 Dungeon Master's Guide - Marketplace - D&D Beyond

<p>Excite your imagination with the <b>2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide</b>, revised and expanded for fifth edition D&D! Whether you're a new or experienced Dungeon Master, here's everything you need to weave epic tales, build fantastical worlds, and inspire memorable moments for your party to...

www.dndbeyond.com

So if one were to build a setting based on the rules as written for 5e 2024 they would explicitly avoid the idea that every member of X species or Y Background etc do things like PCs do. You can either exploit the PC rules in a setting or you can build the setting based on RAW.

 

[...m...]

Is it ever actually stated anywhere those things ‘aren’t for the normies’ or is that something you want to assume because most GMs simply don’t remember/care to give their NPCs those things? honestly I think that would be a good concept to play up on in a ‘designed for 5e’ setting, that a dragonborn guard comes with elemental breath, temporary flight, athletics + perception proficiency and the alert feat (plus I’d assume proficiency with all the equipment that comes in their background)

...i don't have the 5.24 ruleset, but from the 5.14 basic rules introduction to classes...

Adventurers are extraordinary people, driven by a thirst for excitement into a life that others would never dare lead. They are heroes, compelled to explore the dark places of the world and take on the challenges that lesser women and men can’t stand against.

...it's an asymmetrical ruleset, with one set of rules specific to PCs while NPCs (including commoners) use stat blocks; i think that mechanical conceit follows from the introductory premise...

 

[TiQuinn]

Have you played AD&D?

But what is a setting supposed to say about the existence of dwarf wizards when the original pretense of there NOT being dwarf wizards was so incredibly thin to begin with?

Like, the original rationale for the non-existence of dwarf wizards was never baked into the setting. It was a rules restriction because the sense of balance was that the author wanted humans to be important to the game, so he literally put his thumb on the scale.

 

[Remathilis]

But what is a setting supposed to say about the existence of dwarf wizards when the original pretense of there NOT being dwarf wizards was so incredibly thin to begin with?

Like, the original rationale for the non-existence of dwarf wizards was never baked into the setting. It was a rules restriction because the sense of balance was that the author wanted humans to be important to the game, so he literally put his thumb on the scale.

It does beg the question: did Greyhawk not have dwarven wizards because that was an intrinsic part of the setting or was it because that was not an option of the rules? Put another way, if the base AD&D rules has allowed such a combo, would Gary have disallowed it because it was important to the setting of Greyhawk?

 

[TiQuinn]

It does beg the question: did Greyhawk not have dwarven wizards because that was an intrinsic part of the setting or was it because that was not an option of the rules? Put another way, if the base AD&D rules has allowed such a combo, would Gary have disallowed it because it was important to the setting of Greyhawk?

And to me, I think the answer is clear. It’s not like we saw a lot of variation from setting to setting in those core rules. Demihuman limits were a hard line according to the rules.

 

[Scribe]

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)

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.

 

[OB1]

@Reynard you asked about Exandria, there was a thread about that recently. I think it's the most 5e / current play culture WOTC official setting to come out, and the Wildemount book in particular is actually quite good. My specific bulletized list walking through some strong points is here.

Great read and said way better than I did earlier. I have no doubt that Exandria will continue to be played by D&D players for decades, much like FR.

I’m still holding out hope that we get a Shattered Teeth sourcebook in the next year or two.

 

[Reynard]

It does beg the question: did Greyhawk not have dwarven wizards because that was an intrinsic part of the setting or was it because that was not an option of the rules? Put another way, if the base AD&D rules has allowed such a combo, would Gary have disallowed it because it was important to the setting of Greyhawk?

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.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

When Greyhawk was designed, there was no cavalier or barbarian classes. Thus adding them to Greyhawk required a change of design intent. Gary Gygax ruined Greyhawk with Unearthed Arcana, Monster Manual 2 and Oriental Adventure by your reasoning.