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

[Stormonu]

What would be an example of a feature in a new setting that is specific to 5.5? I’m having a mental block here. All I can think of is weapon masteries but I don’t really see how that turns into a distinct feature unique to a setting versus any other setting.

I don't think a new setting needs to be something to push 5.5 exclusively - it would be fine if it could be adapted to other, older editions as well. To me, the draw would be that it's new. It's not a rehash but a new world we haven't seen before that isn't an attempt to skew a MtG's 5-color magic theme to D&D, an adventure disguised as a campaign setting (such as Radiant Citadel & Witchlight) or has 20 years of backlog history and baggage. It's fresh, it's new - has mysteries that haven't been fully revealed yet and works well with the latest D&D.

I'd like for it to be kitchen sink D&D, but it would be nice if it had sidebars with option to tailor/curate it to create one or more themes.

 

[Scribe]

Then again, I get the notion we're never going to see a setting detailed as deeply as the old "separate line" era. Eberron was essentially the end of that style of setting coverage.

Yeah, I think you are right.

 

[Azzy]

I am a little surprised at how new-setting averse folks here are. No wonder WotC won't ever do anything new.

I think it has to do with that people generally run either a homebrew setting or an existing setting already and so really aren't in the market for a new setting (unless is does something novel that is exciting). There's also the fans of existing setting that haven't been updated who would complain about a new setting coming out when their favorite setting is languishing in the dust ("but Jakandor!"). This forum is also primarily populated by old farts rather than noobs, so it's biased towards older settings.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think it has to do with that people generally run either a homebrew setting or an existing setting already and so really aren't in the market for a new setting (unless is does something novel that is exciting).

Which is what happened when Eberron was first debuted back in 3e. It introduced quite a number of novel things (elemental airships, the Warforged, Dragonmarks, the Artificer class, etc.)

 

[Yaarel]

I'd like for it to be kitchen sink D&D, but it would be nice if it had sidebars with option to tailor/curate it to create one or more themes.

I am thinking EVERY setting should be curated, so there are only certain player options according to the setting themes.

It seems effortless for a DM to add more options to make it a kitchen sink.

A curated setting does well to recommend how a DM might implement an unused Players Handbook option. But I dont think a setting should assume every Players Handbook option is in play.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If you want you can create a knight class about to can use more magic items like a "Christmas-tree" PC from a hack&slack videogame. Maybe recycling some ideas from Incarnum.

Why would you publish a new setting when players can read the lore from novels or videogame franchises like the Witcher, Warcraft or Final Fantasy? Your product has to be more interesting than rivals' ones.

Maybe Hasbro would rather to acquire IPs by close companies.

Somebody says Warhammer Fantasy has got "roots" in the setting Pelinore. Maybe this is right for a setting more focused into mass battles.

I am against curating settings because usually I like to choose the "exotic" player options.

 

[Yaarel]

I am against curating settings because usually I like to choose the "exotic" player options.

But it is easy to ask the DM to play an exotic option.

The setting itself doesnt need to mention every possible irregularity. It needs to lay out the general idea, and supply enough mechanics to play out the idea. A DM can modify a setting at-will.

Heh, also. The DM gets to be the good guy by allowing the player a certain option. Rather than a bad guy that removes an option from a kitchen sink.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Sure, but that applied to literally every edition up until that point.

that...doesn't negate the point at all.

 

[Maxperson]

that...doesn't negate the point at all.

It negates it completely. If Eberron was "built specifically for 3e mechanics," but BECMI, 1e, 2e, 4e, and 5e do functionally the same thing, then they it wasn't really built around 3e mechanics. It was simply a theme that relied on the creation of magic items and common magic, which every edition has had. WoTC just used 3e as the justification, since 3e was their baby.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It negates it completely. If Eberron was "built specifically for 3e mechanics," but BECMI, 1e, 2e, 4e, and 5e do functionally the same thing, then they it wasn't really built around 3e mechanics. It was simply a theme that relied on the creation of magic items and common magic, which every edition has had. WoTC just used 3e as the justification, since 3e was their baby.

for one, that assumes magic item creation produced the same results in every edition. for another, that assumes interpreting the same results in a different way means you're not interpreting the results at all. the latter is obviously false on its face. the former, from everything i've heard about 3e crafting as well as how other editions handle crafting, also sounds pretty false to me.