D&D: WotC’s New Lore Changes Raise Questions Among Players

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

 

Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks. 

 

 Drow are Elves, a subtype of Elves; as are Woodelves. I don't really know what Eladrin are and will have to read about them.  Stout halflings are subtype of Halflings.  Half-Orcs are their own thing though - I don't know if they come in multiple subtypes or not.  Unless WoTC is changing things so that Drow do count as their own race in the way half-Orcs do; then at the end of the day, they are still Elves.  

Also, not all Dark elves are necessarily Drow, are they?  I think I rember the Dark Elves in Kryn are actually Sylvan Elves and the title is just one assigned to them when they get banished from that society.  I can't remember if there were others, but it's possibe the term 'Drow', really could refer specifically to Lolths version and the wider catagory of Dark Elf would cover some of these you are telling me about that are in other worlds.  Are they specifically reffered to there as 'Drow' or as Dark Elves? 

They're certainly refered to as 'Drow' in multiple settings. I think setting-specific terminology is a moot point, or rather: it's part of the info that can go in setting books. As for subtypes, if they're not setting-exclusive - and they aren't - then they shouldn't be relegated to setting books. They're then common across settings and that means they have their place in a core book or a setting-agnostic race book (like Volo's or Mordenkainen's are supposed to be). Being a subrace doesn't change that.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

 

Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks. 

 

 Drow are Elves, a subtype of Elves; as are Woodelves. I don't really know what Eladrin are and will have to read about them.  Stout halflings are subtype of Halflings.  Half-Orcs are their own thing though - I don't know if they come in multiple subtypes or not.  Unless WoTC is changing things so that Drow do count as their own race in the way half-Orcs do; then at the end of the day, they are still Elves.  

Also, not all Dark elves are necessarily Drow, are they?  I think I rember the Dark Elves in Kryn are actually Sylvan Elves and the title is just one assigned to them when they get banished from that society.  I can't remember if there were others, but it's possibe the term 'Drow', really could refer specifically to Lolths version and the wider catagory of Dark Elf would cover some of these you are telling me about that are in other worlds.  Are they specifically reffered to there as 'Drow' or as Dark Elves? 

 Drow exist in many worlds. That has been true through many editions of D&D, including 3/3.5 so you should know that. Eberron for example.

Quote from 13th_doomdrake >>

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from 13th_doomdrake >>

 .... I do not know what to say. 

What book(s) are these from? 

 Nowhere!!   Its not in any Book or Errata thats ever been printed until this point in time - which is weird to say in a digital age but whatever.

It's just a blurb on the official Wizards of the Coast Dungeons & Dragons Website!!  https://dnd.wizards.com/story/legend-of-drizzt

I am laughing my ass off this shit is so funny and ridiculous.

 It's the one from the computer game, they could have handled that lore inclusion a wee bit better imo.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>----

Also, no, the mechanics are slightly different.  5e only conveyes disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks.  It doesn't say that some of your magic literally stops working in sunlight.

 

So, are your problems with errata or the fact that 5e mechanics are slightly to significantly different from the mechanics of other editions?  The reasons for disadvantage vs. outright negation are mechanical and balance considerations.  I mean, remember way back when humans got nothing on the modifier front?  Never mind, prior posts in this thread make your grasp of AD&D suspect.  The races were worked, at least initially (and the Drow are among the intial player races in 5e) to have distinctions and balance.  To negate a Drow's powers completely is an over nerf.  The failure of lore die hards in these debates comes down to failing to realize pretty much every edition of the game had substantial lore contortions in way way or another ... so that the lore could better reflect the mechanical basis of the game.  

This discussion is about the impact of recent set of errata.  Your vanity to contend with the consensus has abandoned that focus so that now you're grousing about design elements of the game that have been in literal play since 5e came out.  That makes you insufferable impossible to satisfy within the actual parameters of this discussion because it's not this recent change that's affecting your satisfaction, but stuff put into play at the release of the game.

 I can't really tell which is which sometimes i think.  Again I'm sort of back to the hobbey only recently -just this year, after being gone for like 12 years.  So it's all a bit different compared to all of my old stuff.  Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time.  I'm 3E+.  I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from.  Perhaps, but I think mechanics should follow Lore, not vice versa.  Again, it's easy to 'cure' a PC drow of most of their light sensitivity issues, so they can be a surface adventurer.  They didn't necessarily need to change things for those Drow who mostly stay in the underdark and only come to the surface at night to raid.

 You want to go back to 2nd edition rules for Drow? With percentage based Magic resistance starting at 50% and adding 2% for each level they gained? And I mean not the one we have in 5th but hardcore, this spell does not affect me, type? Because gosh, I see a future of Drow only campaigns. I will gladly take, it takes longer to level up, slap on the wrist if so.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>----

Also, no, the mechanics are slightly different.  5e only conveyes disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks.  It doesn't say that some of your magic literally stops working in sunlight.

 

So, are your problems with errata or the fact that 5e mechanics are slightly to significantly different from the mechanics of other editions?  The reasons for disadvantage vs. outright negation are mechanical and balance considerations.  I mean, remember way back when humans got nothing on the modifier front?  Never mind, prior posts in this thread make your grasp of AD&D suspect.  The races were worked, at least initially (and the Drow are among the intial player races in 5e) to have distinctions and balance.  To negate a Drow's powers completely is an over nerf.  The failure of lore die hards in these debates comes down to failing to realize pretty much every edition of the game had substantial lore contortions in way way or another ... so that the lore could better reflect the mechanical basis of the game.  

This discussion is about the impact of recent set of errata.  Your vanity to contend with the consensus has abandoned that focus so that now you're grousing about design elements of the game that have been in literal play since 5e came out.  That makes you insufferable impossible to satisfy within the actual parameters of this discussion because it's not this recent change that's affecting your satisfaction, but stuff put into play at the release of the game.

 I can't really tell which is which sometimes i think.  Again I'm sort of back to the hobbey only recently -just this year, after being gone for like 12 years.  So it's all a bit different compared to all of my old stuff.  Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time.  I'm 3E+.  I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from.  Perhaps, but I think mechanics should follow Lore, not vice versa.  Again, it's easy to 'cure' a PC drow of most of their light sensitivity issues, so they can be a surface adventurer.  They didn't necessarily need to change things for those Drow who mostly stay in the underdark and only come to the surface at night to raid.

 You want to go back to 2nd edition rules for Drow? With percentage based Magic resistance starting at 50% and adding 2% for each level they gained? And I mean not the one we have in 5th but hardcore, this spell does not affect me, type? Because gosh, I see a future of Drow only campaigns. I will gladly take, it takes longer to level up, slap on the wrist if so.

 

Plus Magic Resistance back then was against all magic, make the % check and it does not affect you at all, not merely advantage on saves. So it is good against spells that have no saves or that partially affect you even if you do save.

 Every spell became a safe or suck, well MR, and then you still had the saving throw for half or nothing. And like MidnightPlat said upthread, lore changed to follow game mechanics. Otherwise we would still be having species that couldn't become Wizards like Dwarves, and all species but Humans had a class level limitation and woman had a strength limitation. This all changed over the years. I don't want to go back to that to be honest.

 

 You want to go back to 2nd edition rules for Drow? With percentage based Magic resistance starting at 50% and adding 2% for each level they gained? And I mean not the one we have in 5th but hardcore, this spell does not affect me, type? Because gosh, I see a future of Drow only campaigns. I will gladly take, it takes longer to level up, slap on the wrist if so.

 

 Read  that bit again, you are responding to.

Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time.  I'm 3E+.  I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying is different now.  5e still does have resistances and immunities in play that halve or negate damage from an attack of it's appropriate type.  That's why there still are silvered/adamantine weapons and +1 items et al. to overcome damage resistance of certain creatures.  

Quote from Kotath >> 

Plus Magic Resistance back then was against all magic, make the % check and it does not affect you at all, not merely advantage on saves. So it is good against spells that have no saves or that partially affect you even if you do save.

Wait; are you saying in 5e; resistance doesn't halve or etc % damage after the fact but, only conveys advantage on the saving throws? :-(s

Quote from Nechaef >>

 Every spell became a safe or suck, well MR, and then you still had the saving throw for half or nothing. And like MidnightPlat said upthread, lore changed to follow game mechanics. Otherwise we would still be having species that couldn't become Wizards like Dwarves, and all species but Humans had a class level limitation and woman had a strength limitation. This all changed over the years. I don't want to go back to that to be honest.

 But I do though; I mean, you know, not the woman thing, but I liked it better when Dwarves for example hate and shum most arcane magic but perhaps for their own runic magic and largely choose to abstain from using it, thus restricting their class access to clerics, fighters, and paladins also finding certain martial classes such as rogue 'dishonourable'. 

Again, you could always make exceptions, but as rule It was better IMHO when diferent species had unique focus's of their talents and abilities, and couldn't/wouldn't all just do everything.  Versatility was the human thing, the more versatile everyone else becomes, the less distinct they are and the less distinct humans are for being versatile.  

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

 Every spell became a safe or suck, well MR, and then you still had the saving throw for half or nothing. And like MidnightPlat said upthread, lore changed to follow game mechanics. Otherwise we would still be having species that couldn't become Wizards like Dwarves, and all species but Humans had a class level limitation and woman had a strength limitation. This all changed over the years. I don't want to go back to that to be honest.

 But I do though; I mean, you know, not the woman thing, but I liked it better when Dwarves for example hate and shum most arcane magic but perhaps for their own runic magic and largely choose to abstain from using it, thus restricting their class access to clerics, fighters, and paladins also finding certain martial classes such as rogue 'dishonourable'. 

Again, you could always make exceptions, but as rule It was better IMHO when diferent species had unique focus's of their talents and abilities, and couldn't/wouldn't all just do everything.  Versatility was the human thing, the more versatile everyone else becomes, the less distinct humans are for being versatile.  

So this table 7 is what you still use? https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/DMG_Ch2_Racial_Level_Restrictions

I think I relatively use ones like these:

 3e SRD:Dwarves, Hill (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Dwarves, Hill (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / 

3e SRD:Elves, High (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Elves, High (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / 

3e SRD:Halflings, Lightfoot (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Halflings, Lightfoot (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) /

3e SRD:Half-Orcs (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Half-Orcs (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) /

etc.  plus some additional tweaking.  If I can get ahold of it, some pathfinder integrations too, and in cases where actually better, some of 5e

eg, my half orcs do have that constitution bonus as well as a +1 to Dex or Wisdom; 

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

I think I relatively use ones like these:

 3e SRD:Dwarves, Hill (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Dwarves, Hill (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / 

3e SRD:Elves, High (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Elves, High (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / 

3e SRD:Halflings, Lightfoot (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Halflings, Lightfoot (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) /

3e SRD:Half-Orcs (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Half-Orcs (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) /

etc.  plus some additional tweaking.  If I can get ahold of it, some pathfinder integrations too, and in cases where actually better, some of 5e

eg, my half orcs do have that constitution bonus as well as a +1 to Dex or Wisdom; 

 So basically you have been homebrewing your races and lore from the moment you started playing 5th, but you complain something changes you're not even following in the first place?

Quote from Nechaef >>

So basically you have been homebrewing your races and lore from the moment you started playing 5th, but you complain something changes you're not even following in the first place? 

 

 ...um ... yes ...?

I suppose I'm complaining I had to bother with homebrewing backwards things in the first place as a reaction to IMHO unneccesary changes that seem to have been motivated by treating fantasy races (species) as though they were a reflection of IRL human races (a concept I disagree with the existance of: I'm in the camp that likes to say the human race is only one race); and as a result of that reflection, they are trying to create in-universe statistical racial equity or something, at the expense of the fantasy when actually all of these these fantasy races should have distinct differences between them, and not all should actually have equall access to the same set of progressions for the same costs as one another. 

An elf should clearly be a better option for a Mage then a Dwarf, a Dwarf or Half-Orc should clearly be a better option for a tank or heavy-dps style martial character than a halfling; a halfling should clearly be a better option for a finesse and/or stealth based martial character or magically augmented one; and a human should not have any clearly better options because humans aren't better at any one thing.  

It’s the absolute height of comedy that a person who admittedly has been away from the game for a dozen or so years is acting as if they are in the position to school others about the true nature of the rules and lore, and that this same person is so very disappointed that the game fails to represent their views. Because vendors make a point of ensuring that people who have spent very little to no money on their product are the ones most satisfied by their product >.>

It’s almost as if the game itself has evolved to appeal to customers spending their money on the product in the last decade instead of stagnating in the hopes that one person will come back to spend their money, which is just crazy for a company in the business of making money to do, right? I’m sure WoTC could have stuck it out all those years and waited for that one person to start buying stuff again. The money spent by this one person surely would have been enough to get them through the decade while that one person was spending their money elsewhere, right? 

Why is this thread even still a thing? It’s been like five pages of one poster crying about how the game is not what it used to be but it really should be *tiny indignant foot stamp* Someone needs to realize that the rest of the world does not exist in stasis whenever they are not present, perfectly preserved exactly the way it was when last looked upon and eagerly awaiting reanimation by a certain person’s regard. 

We're having an adversarial discussion, on the Internet no less, and we're surprised why we're not making progress?

Quote from Born_of_fire74 >>

It’s the absolute height of comedy that a person who admittedly has been away from the game for a dozen or so years is acting as if they are in the position to school others about the true nature of the rules and lore, and that this same person is so very disappointed that the game fails to represent their views. Because vendors make a point of ensuring that people who have spent very little to no money on their product are the ones most satisfied by their product >.>

It’s almost as if the game itself has evolved to appeal to customers spending their money on the product in the last decade instead of stagnating in the hopes that one person will come back to spend their money, which is just crazy for a company in the business of making money to do, right? I’m sure WoTC could have stuck it out all those years and waited for that one person to start buying stuff again. The money spent by this one person surely would have been enough to get them through the decade while that one person was spending their money elsewhere, right? 

Why is this thread even still a thing? It’s been like five pages of one poster crying about how the game is not what it used to be but it really should be *tiny indignant foot stamp* Someone needs to realize that the rest of the world does not exist in stasis whenever they are not present, perfectly preserved exactly the way it was when last looked upon and eagerly awaiting reanimation by a certain person’s regard. 

 Why do assume I'm trying to school anyone?  I'm just answering why I like what I like, and dislike what I dislike; of course I'm a bit disappointed that something I like more changes into something I like less.  Wouldn't you be?  

Dude; I spent over a grand on 3e; and now I'm spending again on 5e.  I spent $0 on 4e.  The moral of the story is that if I spend money on a product, and you want me spend more money; give me a similar product as the one I spent money on the first time.  WotC did largely learn this lesson with 5e relative to 4e and the competition they got from Pathfinders basically 3.75 version of 3e. When you make your product too different to what you already know I like to buy, then you are telling me that "I" am not your sales target, and that you are taking "my" business for granted in your efferts to widen your customer base.  It shouldn't be a surprise if I don't necessarily stick around to buy the new product. 

What should be a surprise, and is/was for many corporations, and apperently might be for you too, is when it turns out there are more of me then there are of your new target, and you loose total net customer numbers/revenues by bringing in fewer new cutomers than old ones whom you've lost by alienating them.  Luckily, WotC isn't facing this particular happenstance with 5e the way other franchises have; instead having struck a good balance and bringing in both new and returning customers.  They are walking a fine line though, and should be careful about how much further they want their next version of the product to move in another direction so as not to repeat the mistake of 4e.  -I'm never just one person; I'm one example of a portion of your clientbase 28% at last count from teh poll on the other thread.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from Born_of_fire74 >>

It’s the absolute height of comedy that a person who admittedly has been away from the game for a dozen or so years is acting as if they are in the position to school others about the true nature of the rules and lore, and that this same person is so very disappointed that the game fails to represent their views. Because vendors make a point of ensuring that people who have spent very little to no money on their product are the ones most satisfied by their product >.>

It’s almost as if the game itself has evolved to appeal to customers spending their money on the product in the last decade instead of stagnating in the hopes that one person will come back to spend their money, which is just crazy for a company in the business of making money to do, right? I’m sure WoTC could have stuck it out all those years and waited for that one person to start buying stuff again. The money spent by this one person surely would have been enough to get them through the decade while that one person was spending their money elsewhere, right? 

Why is this thread even still a thing? It’s been like five pages of one poster crying about how the game is not what it used to be but it really should be *tiny indignant foot stamp* Someone needs to realize that the rest of the world does not exist in stasis whenever they are not present, perfectly preserved exactly the way it was when last looked upon and eagerly awaiting reanimation by a certain person’s regard. 

 Why do assume I'm trying to school anyone?  I'm just answering why I like what I like, and dislike what I dislike; of course I'm a bit disappointed that something I like more changes into something I like less.  Wouldn't you be?  

Dude; I spent over a grand on 3e; and now I'm spending again on 5e.  I spent $0 on 4e.  The moral of the story is that if I spend money on a product, and you want me spend more money; give me a similar product as the one I spent money on the first time.  WotC 5e did largely learn this lesson with 5e relative to 4e and the competition they got from Pathfinders basically 3.75 version of 3e. When you make your product too different to what you already know I like to buy, then you are telling me that "I" am not your sales target, and that you are taking "my" business for granted in your efferts to widen your customer base.  It shouldn't be a surprise if I don't necessarily stick around to buy the new product. 

What should be a surprise, and is/was for many corporations, and apperently might be for you too, is when it turns out there are more of me then there are of your new target, and you loose total net customer numbers/revenues by bringing in fewer new cutomers than old ones whom you've lost by alienating them.  Luckily, WotC isn't facing this particular happenstance with 5e the way other franchises have; instead having struck a good balance and bringing in both new and returning customers.  They are walking a fine line though, and should be careful about how much further they want their next version of the product to move in another direction so as not to repeat the mistake of 4e.  

D&D has never sold as well as it does right now, and much of that has to do with the changes you dislike so much.  WotC are certainly not going back towards 3.5 anytime soon.  It might just be that you are outside the target demographic for this product. There is nothing wrong with that.  3.5 and Pathfinder still exist.  You still have those books.  You can still play those games.

 

D&D has never sold as well as it does right now, and much of that has to do with the changes you dislike so much.  WotC are certainly not going back towards 3.5 anytime soon.  It might just be that you are outside the target demographic for this product. There is nothing wrong with that.  3.5 and Pathfinder still exist.  You still have those books.  You can still play those games.

 

 -was editing; but yeah, there in a good place right now.  A sweet spot.  Yeah, that's fair, and yeah, I've been.  It seems to me I was more outside the target demograpghic of 4e; and 5e indeed represented an effort to reinclude me in the target demographics.  However well 5e is doing, it is a bounceback.  It isn't straight linear growth from 3 to 4 to 5.

Hello Shepherd_Hubbard,

From what I was able to find, 4e did not suffer poor sales because of the changes made. The anger seemed to stem from the fact that 4e was release only 5 years after the release of 3.5e. I do not feel that you are representing this example fairly in your argument. They seem to be entirely different situations with entirely different reasons for consumer pushback. 

So, I suppose I'm just not sure why you're bothering to play 5E at all if you basically just want to play older editions? It seems like a case where you are carping about something that doesn't even matter to you for the sole purpose of roiling up controversy. You can still play ADnD, or 3.5, or whatever. For some of us, seeing the changes that have come around over the course of playing this game since around 1992 is welcome. The game has, in many ways, improved. Particularly when it comes to the basic lore and allowance for creativity baked into the rules. There are certainly some things from 3.5 that I preferred, but overall this is a much healthier, welcoming, and accepted game than it used to be. 

Quote from Erriku >>

Hello Shepherd_Hubbard,

From what I was able to find, 4e did not suffer poor sales because of the changes made. The anger seemed to stem from the fact that 4e was release only 5 years after the release of 3.5e. I do not feel that you are representing this example fairly in your argument. They seem to be entirely different situations with entirely different reasons for consumer pushback. 

 Hello.  How are you?

Nah, the 5 year thing was a part of it, but the changes definitely were too; a much huger part IMHO.  If it was just the release date, eventually we would've gotten over it and bought in to 4e, even if it was after another couple of years, should it have turned out to be a great version of the game.  The lack of compatibility was a problem as well.  It's much easier to update from 3e to 5e then it was to try to update from 3e to 4e. 

Similalrly 4e was only around for about 6 years too and 5e still is selling well and being appreciated.  The anger about another new addition comming out so quickly didn't seem to hold 5e back because most of us agree its a far better system; and largely for some us because it did take a step back from the direction 4e went in.  The 4e reasons for consumer pushback re the changes are different of course.  4e pushback was over issues of mechanical changes to the nature of the game on top of it's quick release and incompatability issues.  5e solved that, and now it is potential impending social changes that are causing some consumer pushback. 

I don't recall there being any social issues with 4e depictions of the lore, but then again, I didn't stay active much past the introduction of 4e to really keep paying attention.