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

[Tessarael]

Dragonborn could be utilized as Draconians in the Dragonlance setting with minor tweaks. Likewise, as Saurials in the Forgotten Realms.

That said, I agree with the critique that with a wide set of species to choose from, they are poorly populated in some worlds, and often lacking a primary city where they dwell. Rather, perhaps to cater to players choosing from a variety of species, there is assumed to be a sparse population across multiple locations for some species. That's fine, but it breaks my world building viewpoint where I feel that there need to be sustainable population centers for that species to exist in that world, unless they're getting repopulated to a moderate extent by travelers from off-world.

 

[Zardnaar]

5E setting is FR.

 

[Yaarel]

Mechanics express Setting, not the other way around.

There is a feedback loop between mechanics and flavor. That said.

5e 2024 makes an effort toward core rules that are setting neutral. So it is up to the official setting to supply special mechanics to actualize certain flavors if necessary. But generally the core rules are narratively versatile and work as-is for most adventure settings.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Arkhan the Cruel. Several NPC adversaries are Dragonborn in the Tyranny of Dragons modules.

As for tieflings, Avarice from Rime of the Frostmaiden. There’s a bunch in Dungeon of the Mad Mage. That’s just off the top of my head. You can find more on the FR wiki easily. I’m just not sure what you mean by they’re not built into the settings?

 

[Scribe]

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.

That's not what I said at all. I don't hate D&D either, at all.

 

[Yaarel]

So just by way of example, one mechanical thing that is new in 5.5 that I think would impact the way we write D&D settings differently than how we have done it so far, is the change in how species and background interact mechanically. previously, we did a lot of pastiche Tolkiening -- this race (or subrace) is like this and lives here and so on. 5.5 throws that out in a big way. Those themed locations (your Rivendels and whatever) would no longer be species based, but culturally based. that is a big deal in a setting design.

The following applies divergently toward any settings, not convergently toward a single bespoke setting:

The 5e 2024 "origin" mechanics are distinctive and enhance any setting. The fusion of background, feat, and ability improvements (for a strong level 1 character) encourage players to invest narratively in the local institutions, factions, and cultural values, for the purpose of gaining mechanical player options. This heightens the vividness and immersiveness of the setting cultures as part of a characters personal story.

For example, the old school Drow were known for their creations of adamantine chain armor and sleep poison. Now with 2024 mechanics these are something a players own Drow character can do, by choosing the appropriate origin feat. Later feats can elaborate the origin tropes. And potentially the bastion mechanics can establish the character as the master of a factory, guild, or renaissance master workshop studio of adamantine armors, and so on.

The 2024 character is threads within the tapestry of the local cultures. Characters emerge from cultures and can influence cultures.

This is true for Eberron, Strixhaven, Darksun, etcetera. All settings have the player characters benefit from cultural institutions via player options.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

It’s been part of the game since 1st edition. Gygax actually discusses what fraction of the population have class levels. I think the figure he came up with was one in ten thousand. Third edition went so far as to add simpler and weaker classes for NPCs.

 

[Zardnaar]

It’s been part of the game since 1st edition. Gygax actually discusses what fraction of the population have class levels. I think the figure he came up with was one in ten thousand. Third edition went so far as to add simpler and weaker classes for NPCs.

Hommlet. One in 10000 huh?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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?

It was the rules. Gary would have disallowed it because he didn’t like non-human PCs. He wasn’t much interested in world building and settings. Greyhawk was just the generic fantasy setting where his game happened. It wasn’t until Gary stepped back from the day to day that settings that differed from core rules started to appear (Dragonlance was the first).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Hommlet. One in 10000 huh?

Yeah, Gygax often ignored his own rules.