5e isn't so much difficult to run, as It's more difficult to run than other systems on the market such as DCC (which has amazing modules) or PF 2e (a masterclass in balanced gameplay), compared to those two systems 5e seems daunting to run. I'm sure there's other easier to run systems but those are the two other systems I'm most familiar with,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
Worth noting: I often have no faintest foggiest idea what damnfool cockamaimy thing Wizards decides to classify a critter as. if I wanted to go look up the Glabrezu in a physical book and wasn't already aware that it's classified as a n Abyssal Demon, I'd have to sit here and go "is that a Devil, a Demon, a Fiend, or something else? Wasn't there another category you could find demons in? The hell was this thing supposed to be..." and check half the monster manual. Frankly, even right now I have no idea where the damn thing is. If all I have is a name - "Glabrezu" - and the book's organized primarily alphabetically, though? I know right where to find the critter.
A bestiary should have lore and details for broad categories of critters, and possibly sub-indices for locating them in the book, but I can see the argument for alphabetizing the actual listing.
Hmm random thought. If they're removing cunning artisan from lizardfolk. It's not like a proficiency. It's just gone with no way to take that ability even if you want it anymore.
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
Worth noting: I often have no faintest foggiest idea what damnfool cockamaimy thing Wizards decides to classify a critter as. if I wanted to go look up the Glabrezu in a physical book and wasn't already aware that it's classified as a n Abyssal Demon, I'd have to sit here and go "is that a Devil, a Demon, a Fiend, or something else? Wasn't there another category you could find demons in? The hell was this thing supposed to be..." and check half the monster manual. Frankly, even right now I have no idea where the damn thing is. If all I have is a name - "Glabrezu" - and the book's organized primarily alphabetically, though? I know right where to find the critter.
A bestiary should have lore and details for broad categories of critters, and possibly sub-indices for locating them in the book, but I can see the argument for alphabetizing the actual listing.
I mean, a creature type bestiary list in the front of the manual ala the class spell lists in the PHB is a great way to give an overview of what type is what (bonus points if that list is organized by CR) would be a great way to give folks all the cross referencing they need, and then have the actual list of monsters in alphabetical order. When I'm running a game, the extra step to recognize the Glabrezu is a Demon, and under the Demon's heading in D and not G, is a pain if I'm needing to flip pages.
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
Worth noting: I often have no faintest foggiest idea what damnfool cockamaimy thing Wizards decides to classify a critter as. if I wanted to go look up the Glabrezu in a physical book and wasn't already aware that it's classified as a n Abyssal Demon, I'd have to sit here and go "is that a Devil, a Demon, a Fiend, or something else? Wasn't there another category you could find demons in? The hell was this thing supposed to be..." and check half the monster manual. Frankly, even right now I have no idea where the damn thing is. If all I have is a name - "Glabrezu" - and the book's organized primarily alphabetically, though? I know right where to find the critter.
A bestiary should have lore and details for broad categories of critters, and possibly sub-indices for locating them in the book, but I can see the argument for alphabetizing the actual listing.
I mean, a creature type bestiary list in the front of the manual ala the class spell lists in the PHB is a great way to give an overview of what type is what (bonus points if that list is organized by CR) would be a great way to give folks all the cross referencing they need, and then have the actual list of monsters in alphabetical order. When I'm running a game, the extra step to recognize the Glabrezu is a Demon, and under the Demon's heading in D and not G, is a pain if I'm needing to flip pages.
Thats the sort of formatting I can get behind.
I mean, between a table of contents, tables and indexes, there's no reason not to list them every possible useful way
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
Worth noting: I often have no faintest foggiest idea what damnfool cockamaimy thing Wizards decides to classify a critter as. if I wanted to go look up the Glabrezu in a physical book and wasn't already aware that it's classified as a n Abyssal Demon, I'd have to sit here and go "is that a Devil, a Demon, a Fiend, or something else? Wasn't there another category you could find demons in? The hell was this thing supposed to be..." and check half the monster manual. Frankly, even right now I have no idea where the damn thing is. If all I have is a name - "Glabrezu" - and the book's organized primarily alphabetically, though? I know right where to find the critter.
A bestiary should have lore and details for broad categories of critters, and possibly sub-indices for locating them in the book, but I can see the argument for alphabetizing the actual listing.
I mean, a creature type bestiary list in the front of the manual ala the class spell lists in the PHB is a great way to give an overview of what type is what (bonus points if that list is organized by CR) would be a great way to give folks all the cross referencing they need, and then have the actual list of monsters in alphabetical order. When I'm running a game, the extra step to recognize the Glabrezu is a Demon, and under the Demon's heading in D and not G, is a pain if I'm needing to flip pages.
Thats the sort of formatting I can get behind.
I mean, between a table of contents, tables and indexes, there's no reason not to list them every possible useful way
The reason is more of a practical matter of book binding. You can't just add one page to a book, they come in bundles, so if you go over a certain number, and you've got to add another, it's usually 16 pages, (which is basically four long sheets of paper, and folded in half, and then there's front in back, so four sheets gets you 16 pages.) but that can be a different number. And there is a point where to make and sell a book for a certain price point, there can only be a certain number of pages in it. So, it turns into, if you want to add one thing, you have to cut something else.
Sure, they could make the tables digitally, but WotC is a dead-tree company. They think in terms of page counts, and you can be sure they have a budget allotment for how long any given book can be.
I don't disagree with you. But is the Mechanical attributes of a race in a game the way we define the relationship between species in said game, or is there deeper underlining attributes that don't require definition to make a game function, yet binds all elves together?
Presumably yes, since simply naming a race "elf" evokes a number of expectations - ageless, graceful, wise, pointy eared humanoids, often distant from the rest of the world. Not sure of that's a good thing or bad though.
Then it would be those types of traits that make an Elf an Elf, and the mechanical traits that only really function as part of a game can be as diverse as they like and have something or nothing in common between the various elves.
Ok, but what if I wanted to use two or three of these elves in my campaign, and they have nothing meaningful in common? Are they still all (called) elf, and if so are they supposed to be related even if they're nothing alike?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
Worth noting: I often have no faintest foggiest idea what damnfool cockamaimy thing Wizards decides to classify a critter as. if I wanted to go look up the Glabrezu in a physical book and wasn't already aware that it's classified as a n Abyssal Demon, I'd have to sit here and go "is that a Devil, a Demon, a Fiend, or something else? Wasn't there another category you could find demons in? The hell was this thing supposed to be..." and check half the monster manual. Frankly, even right now I have no idea where the damn thing is. If all I have is a name - "Glabrezu" - and the book's organized primarily alphabetically, though? I know right where to find the critter.
A bestiary should have lore and details for broad categories of critters, and possibly sub-indices for locating them in the book, but I can see the argument for alphabetizing the actual listing.
I mean, a creature type bestiary list in the front of the manual ala the class spell lists in the PHB is a great way to give an overview of what type is what (bonus points if that list is organized by CR) would be a great way to give folks all the cross referencing they need, and then have the actual list of monsters in alphabetical order. When I'm running a game, the extra step to recognize the Glabrezu is a Demon, and under the Demon's heading in D and not G, is a pain if I'm needing to flip pages.
Thats the sort of formatting I can get behind.
Ideally there's an alfabetical index for quick reference, as well as some thematical tables to help DMs put encounters, areas and ecologies together more efficiently, and the monsters themselves are grouped by type to limit the amount of flipping back and forth. If the writeups are purely alfabetical I'll be wearing out that binding in no time flat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mean, between a table of contents, tables and indexes, there's no reason not to list them every possible useful way
The reason is more of a practical matter of book binding. You can't just add one page to a book, they come in bundles, so if you go over a certain number, and you've got to add another, it's usually 16 pages, (which is basically four long sheets of paper, and folded in half, and then there's front in back, so four sheets gets you 16 pages.) but that can be a different number. And there is a point where to make and sell a book for a certain price point, there can only be a certain number of pages in it. So, it turns into, if you want to add one thing, you have to cut something else.
Sure, they could make the tables digitally, but WotC is a dead-tree company. They think in terms of page counts, and you can be sure they have a budget allotment for how long any given book can be.
Not to "well, actually" your point; but, and not sure if this was just for its initial run or stayed with the edition throughout, but 2e tried this "Monstrous Cyclopedia" approach where the "core monster manual" was a three ring binder and subsequent releases of monsters or expansion content came loose leaf to be added to that binder, which you could organize however you wanted.
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
Worth noting: I often have no faintest foggiest idea what damnfool cockamaimy thing Wizards decides to classify a critter as. if I wanted to go look up the Glabrezu in a physical book and wasn't already aware that it's classified as a n Abyssal Demon, I'd have to sit here and go "is that a Devil, a Demon, a Fiend, or something else? Wasn't there another category you could find demons in? The hell was this thing supposed to be..." and check half the monster manual. Frankly, even right now I have no idea where the damn thing is. If all I have is a name - "Glabrezu" - and the book's organized primarily alphabetically, though? I know right where to find the critter.
A bestiary should have lore and details for broad categories of critters, and possibly sub-indices for locating them in the book, but I can see the argument for alphabetizing the actual listing.
I mean, a creature type bestiary list in the front of the manual ala the class spell lists in the PHB is a great way to give an overview of what type is what (bonus points if that list is organized by CR) would be a great way to give folks all the cross referencing they need, and then have the actual list of monsters in alphabetical order. When I'm running a game, the extra step to recognize the Glabrezu is a Demon, and under the Demon's heading in D and not G, is a pain if I'm needing to flip pages.
Thats the sort of formatting I can get behind.
So I actually appreciate Yurei and Iconorising's points and now think I get it. It would be frustrating if you're using a DMsGuild product where a Glabruazu is mentioned and the "demon" context isn't clear and you're lost trying to find it. I want to say 5e WotC writing is a bit more careful than that, and it would be pretty clear from context you'd look it up under Demons; but I'm not a 100% sure and wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong.
I guess I'm wondering what does happen to those broad lore swaths that in the MM covers demons and devils respectively and even dinosaurs. I mean I don't think a DM needs much coaching on dinosaurs, but there are common traits/powers shared or optional (like their own summoning abilities) and I just don't know whether the new style entries will just have a lot of overlapping redundant material among entries or there will be broad "category" entries with a listing of specific entries to refer to for specific demon, devil fiend etc.
Hags would be another one where there are distinct flavors but also a common body of mechanical function off the top of my head.
Not hating the move, especially with the above clarity specifying the need (and I had to check myself from expressing "but a real DM shouldn't be using Glabrazu until they have a general handle on demons anyway" because I am not a tool and don't really think that, despite my own sorta specific way I insist fiends are played in my game). All that said, I am curious about how/where the broader syonpsis would be formatted in future books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't disagree with you. But is the Mechanical attributes of a race in a game the way we define the relationship between species in said game, or is there deeper underlining attributes that don't require definition to make a game function, yet binds all elves together?
Presumably yes, since simply naming a race "elf" evokes a number of expectations - ageless, graceful, wise, pointy eared humanoids, often distant from the rest of the world. Not sure of that's a good thing or bad though.
Then it would be those types of traits that make an Elf an Elf, and the mechanical traits that only really function as part of a game can be as diverse as they like and have something or nothing in common between the various elves.
Ok, but what if I wanted to use two or three of these elves in my campaign, and they have nothing meaningful in common? Are they still all (called) elf, and if so are they supposed to be related even if they're nothing alike?
Sure, why not. You can have a Mastiff, a Poodle and Pomeranian and call them all Dogs. Why can't you have a three types of Elves?
The point I am trying to make is the Game Mechanics are NOT all there is to a race. All elves can be elves and have different Game Mechanics.
Edit: The Lore explains how the Elves are related in a given world. The Mechanics just tell you how to play the game.
I mean, between a table of contents, tables and indexes, there's no reason not to list them every possible useful way
The reason is more of a practical matter of book binding. You can't just add one page to a book, they come in bundles, so if you go over a certain number, and you've got to add another, it's usually 16 pages, (which is basically four long sheets of paper, and folded in half, and then there's front in back, so four sheets gets you 16 pages.) but that can be a different number. And there is a point where to make and sell a book for a certain price point, there can only be a certain number of pages in it. So, it turns into, if you want to add one thing, you have to cut something else.
Sure, they could make the tables digitally, but WotC is a dead-tree company. They think in terms of page counts, and you can be sure they have a budget allotment for how long any given book can be.
Not to "well, actually" your point; but, and not sure if this was just for its initial run or stayed with the edition throughout, but 2e tried this "Monstrous Cyclopedia" approach where the "core monster manual" was a three ring binder and subsequent releases of monsters or expansion content came loose leaf to be added to that binder, which you could organize however you wanted.
I remember that well. It did not last long, however. Though I don't know the ins and outs of loose-leaf publishing, I'd bet there are page requirements there, too. And isn't even an option anyone is discussing here. Also, while the self-organizing could be helpful for some people, at least until they forget where they filed something, it would make reference tables even harder, since they'd have to re-print any such tables every time the released a new book. Kind of like now when people keep asking for new random treasure tables that reflect all the magic items that have been released since the DMG.
Kind of like now when people keep asking for new random treasure tables that reflect all the magic items that have been released since the DMG.
That is a problem, and I love how Fizban's produces tables without its own magic items on it. The problem of course being you'd need some sort of table generating matrix, because what the whales among us want is a table for the DM who has everything; but what of the DM who has the DMG, XGtE, Fizban's but banned Tasha's entirely. Not every game plays with the same book, but every game wants tables that consolidate their books be it for treasures or random encounters. This is something I think would be an awesome online resource for WotC to put out (I'd say DDB should get on it but such tables would probably cross that original content line they can't cross or what have you).
And to put this comment more in line with the thread, as WotC goes more full bore into this "multiverse" concept (which would grant tables license to use different configurations of setting and lore books) tables as they're currently rendered tend to be inadequate. A neat "how to set up a random table" using percentile consideratons and CR etc could be a welcome editon to some core manual of WotC Projekt D&D 2024 RED, like maybe put it inside the lid or base of the box if they're going that direction in product design.
That is a problem, and I love how Fizban's produces tables without its own magic items on it. The problem of course being you'd need some sort of table generating matrix, because what the whales among us want is a table for the DM who has everything; but what of the DM who has the DMG, XGtE, Fizban's but banned Tasha's entirely.
It would actually be pretty straightforward to implement in D&D beyond; just add a 'random' button to the magic item search, that produces something random within the filters you set. Doing it with hardcopy is harder, though you can do it well enough with a set of magic item cards.
I’m not entirely sure, but I think it was something Colville said. I think someone had asked him what D&D was and he didn’t know how to answer at first. After a time he eventually landed upon the answer:
Start taking things away from D&D one at a time and whenever you take away something that makes it not D&D anymore, put it back. Keep doing that until all that’s left are the things that you have specifically put back, and whatever is left in that little pile is D&D.
The very first thing I ever put back was Racial ASIs.
Quite literally, one of the few things that I felt was most intrinsically D&D is being discarded from D&D.
And I understand that. And if I were in charge of D&D 5e, I would make all the new races have recommended ability scores. And I'm one of the guys that is pro-floating racial ASIs. I want to have my cake, but I also want you and the other people that want theirs to have it, too. I have no idea why WotC didn't do this, because it would just be adding a single sentence/line to each race, but if I were in charge, that's what I would do.
And if Racial ASIs are one of the main things that makes D&D be D&D for you, I do not understand or agree with that at all, but recognize that you should have the right to keep playing D&D how you want and have it supported by the core of the game.
I'm sad that the disappearance of Racial ASIs is making some people leave (or start to consider leaving) the hobby, and wish WotC would provide recommended ASIs for the races for those that do want them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The other thing that annoys me about the new trend for races is how scant the write ups are. Th three most recent races, Owlin, Herengone, and Fairy are all so… barren. There are next to no cultural entries for them and not even name suggestions. Bubkes. (Less than bubkes actually, since there isn’t even a 🐐💩 there.) WotC is making them so neutral that they’re generic and bland. Owlin are owl people, that’s basically all it says. Herengone are bunny people, that’s basically all it says. 🥱😴😪😮💨😪😮💨🤤
The other thing that annoys me about the new trend for races is how scant the write ups are. Th three most recent races, Owlin, Herengone, and Fairy are all so… barren. There are next to no cultural entries for them and not even name suggestions. Bubkes. (Less than bubkes actually, since there isn’t even a 🐐💩 there.) WotC is making them so neutral that they’re generic and bland. Owlin are owl people, that’s basically all it says. Herengone are bunny people, that’s basically all it says. 🥱😴😪😮💨😪😮💨🤤
I think that it's mainly because those specific races are newer and don't have the same opportunity to gain lore as older races do. They'll probably get more lore later on (there is some scattered through The Wild Beyond the Witchlight on Harengon, for instance), and Owlin already have some lore in M:tG (which I really wish Strixhaven would have explained), but they're just lacking for now.
The most recent UA proved that not all newer races will have this low-quality and quantity of lore. There's lore on Plasmoids, Giff (or Jiff?), Autognomes, and Astral Elves. The Hadozee and Thri-Kreen don't get that much, and the Giff lore should really mention firearms, but it is there, and is quite a lot of lore in comparison to the Owlin, Harengon, and Fairy races.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The other thing that annoys me about the new trend for races is how scant the write ups are. Th three most recent races, Owlin, Herengone, and Fairy are all so… barren. There are next to no cultural entries for them and not even name suggestions. Bubkes. (Less than bubkes actually, since there isn’t even a 🐐💩 there.) WotC is making them so neutral that they’re generic and bland. Owlin are owl people, that’s basically all it says. Herengone are bunny people, that’s basically all it says. 🥱😴😪😮💨😪😮💨🤤
I think that it's mainly because those specific races are newer and don't have the same opportunity to gain lore as older races do. They'll probably get more lore later on (there is some scattered through The Wild Beyond the Witchlight on Harengon, for instance), and Owlin already have some lore in M:tG (which I really wish Strixhaven would have explained), but they're just lacking for now.
The most recent UA proved that not all newer races will have this low-quality and quantity of lore. There's lore on Plasmoids, Giff (or Jiff?), Autognomes, and Astral Elves. The Hadozee and Thri-Kreen don't get that much, and the Giff lore should really mention firearms, but it is there, and is quite a lot of lore in comparison to the Owlin, Harengon, and Fairy races.
That's UA, though. No guarantee any of that makes the cut if they become official
It does feel like WotC has over-corrected and the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, going from "race A has to be X, Y and Z" to "race A is a blank slate and we won't tell you a thing about them so you can use them in any setting". There is a middle ground there when it comes to things like lore, they just haven't found it yet
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The other thing that annoys me about the new trend for races is how scant the write ups are. Th three most recent races, Owlin, Herengone, and Fairy are all so… barren. There are next to no cultural entries for them and not even name suggestions. Bubkes. (Less than bubkes actually, since there isn’t even a 🐐💩 there.) WotC is making them so neutral that they’re generic and bland. Owlin are owl people, that’s basically all it says. Herengone are bunny people, that’s basically all it says. 🥱😴😪😮💨😪😮💨🤤
I think that it's mainly because those specific races are newer and don't have the same opportunity to gain lore as older races do. They'll probably get more lore later on (there is some scattered through The Wild Beyond the Witchlight on Harengon, for instance), and Owlin already have some lore in M:tG (which I really wish Strixhaven would have explained), but they're just lacking for now.
The most recent UA proved that not all newer races will have this low-quality and quantity of lore. There's lore on Plasmoids, Giff (or Jiff?), Autognomes, and Astral Elves. The Hadozee and Thri-Kreen don't get that much, and the Giff lore should really mention firearms, but it is there, and is quite a lot of lore in comparison to the Owlin, Harengon, and Fairy races.
That's UA, though. No guarantee any of that makes the cut if they become official
It does feel like WotC has over-corrected and the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, going from "race A has to be X, Y and Z" to "race A is a blank slate and we won't tell you a thing about them so you can use them in any setting". There is a middle ground there when it comes to things like lore, they just haven't found it yet
But why would they remove that? It's interesting fluff text. They don't even have an option on the UA surveys to rate lore, and there would be no reason to remove it.
I do think WotC doesn't fully understand what their players want, which is especially confusing because they have a ton of survey data about this topic. I'm against having racial ASIs be the only option in D&D 5e, and don't think cultural elements of races should be included in their racial stats (including alignment), but WotC for some reason decided to remove Age, Height/Weight tables, and similar stuff from racial mechanics when I've literally never seen anyone ask for any of that stuff.
I do think WotC doesn't understand their community, but there's also very few of these changes that I'm directly against. Even the ones that I don't understand the reason for (height/weight tables, typical age ranges, etc) I'm not angry/upset about, I'm just confused.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I do think WotC doesn't fully understand what their players want, which is especially confusing because they have a ton of survey data about this topic. I'm against having racial ASIs be the only option in D&D 5e, and don't think cultural elements of races should be included in their racial stats (including alignment), but WotC for some reason decided to remove Age, Height/Weight tables, and similar stuff from racial mechanics when I've literally never seen anyone ask for any of that stuff.
I've yet to be impressed by the questionnaire put out by WotC, they seem to be adept at gathering quantitative data points that can tell them anything they want to justify an editorial decision, but very little probing to develop a qualitative understanding of who's playing their game. That's not to say they don't necessarily have that qualitative understanding ... but they're not getting it from the surveys.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
5e isn't so much difficult to run, as It's more difficult to run than other systems on the market such as DCC (which has amazing modules) or PF 2e (a masterclass in balanced gameplay), compared to those two systems 5e seems daunting to run. I'm sure there's other easier to run systems but those are the two other systems I'm most familiar with,
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
Worth noting: I often have no faintest foggiest idea what damnfool cockamaimy thing Wizards decides to classify a critter as. if I wanted to go look up the Glabrezu in a physical book and wasn't already aware that it's classified as a n Abyssal Demon, I'd have to sit here and go "is that a Devil, a Demon, a Fiend, or something else? Wasn't there another category you could find demons in? The hell was this thing supposed to be..." and check half the monster manual. Frankly, even right now I have no idea where the damn thing is. If all I have is a name - "Glabrezu" - and the book's organized primarily alphabetically, though? I know right where to find the critter.
A bestiary should have lore and details for broad categories of critters, and possibly sub-indices for locating them in the book, but I can see the argument for alphabetizing the actual listing.
Please do not contact or message me.
Hmm random thought. If they're removing cunning artisan from lizardfolk. It's not like a proficiency. It's just gone with no way to take that ability even if you want it anymore.
Would it work as a feat which anyone could take?
I mean, a creature type bestiary list in the front of the manual ala the class spell lists in the PHB is a great way to give an overview of what type is what (bonus points if that list is organized by CR) would be a great way to give folks all the cross referencing they need, and then have the actual list of monsters in alphabetical order. When I'm running a game, the extra step to recognize the Glabrezu is a Demon, and under the Demon's heading in D and not G, is a pain if I'm needing to flip pages.
Thats the sort of formatting I can get behind.
I mean, between a table of contents, tables and indexes, there's no reason not to list them every possible useful way
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The reason is more of a practical matter of book binding. You can't just add one page to a book, they come in bundles, so if you go over a certain number, and you've got to add another, it's usually 16 pages, (which is basically four long sheets of paper, and folded in half, and then there's front in back, so four sheets gets you 16 pages.) but that can be a different number. And there is a point where to make and sell a book for a certain price point, there can only be a certain number of pages in it. So, it turns into, if you want to add one thing, you have to cut something else.
Sure, they could make the tables digitally, but WotC is a dead-tree company. They think in terms of page counts, and you can be sure they have a budget allotment for how long any given book can be.
Ok, but what if I wanted to use two or three of these elves in my campaign, and they have nothing meaningful in common? Are they still all (called) elf, and if so are they supposed to be related even if they're nothing alike?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ideally there's an alfabetical index for quick reference, as well as some thematical tables to help DMs put encounters, areas and ecologies together more efficiently, and the monsters themselves are grouped by type to limit the amount of flipping back and forth. If the writeups are purely alfabetical I'll be wearing out that binding in no time flat.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not to "well, actually" your point; but, and not sure if this was just for its initial run or stayed with the edition throughout, but 2e tried this "Monstrous Cyclopedia" approach where the "core monster manual" was a three ring binder and subsequent releases of monsters or expansion content came loose leaf to be added to that binder, which you could organize however you wanted.
So I actually appreciate Yurei and Iconorising's points and now think I get it. It would be frustrating if you're using a DMsGuild product where a Glabruazu is mentioned and the "demon" context isn't clear and you're lost trying to find it. I want to say 5e WotC writing is a bit more careful than that, and it would be pretty clear from context you'd look it up under Demons; but I'm not a 100% sure and wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong.
I guess I'm wondering what does happen to those broad lore swaths that in the MM covers demons and devils respectively and even dinosaurs. I mean I don't think a DM needs much coaching on dinosaurs, but there are common traits/powers shared or optional (like their own summoning abilities) and I just don't know whether the new style entries will just have a lot of overlapping redundant material among entries or there will be broad "category" entries with a listing of specific entries to refer to for specific demon, devil fiend etc.
Hags would be another one where there are distinct flavors but also a common body of mechanical function off the top of my head.
Not hating the move, especially with the above clarity specifying the need (and I had to check myself from expressing "but a real DM shouldn't be using Glabrazu until they have a general handle on demons anyway" because I am not a tool and don't really think that, despite my own sorta specific way I insist fiends are played in my game). All that said, I am curious about how/where the broader syonpsis would be formatted in future books.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Sure, why not. You can have a Mastiff, a Poodle and Pomeranian and call them all Dogs. Why can't you have a three types of Elves?
The point I am trying to make is the Game Mechanics are NOT all there is to a race. All elves can be elves and have different Game Mechanics.
Edit: The Lore explains how the Elves are related in a given world. The Mechanics just tell you how to play the game.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I remember that well. It did not last long, however. Though I don't know the ins and outs of loose-leaf publishing, I'd bet there are page requirements there, too. And isn't even an option anyone is discussing here. Also, while the self-organizing could be helpful for some people, at least until they forget where they filed something, it would make reference tables even harder, since they'd have to re-print any such tables every time the released a new book. Kind of like now when people keep asking for new random treasure tables that reflect all the magic items that have been released since the DMG.
That is a problem, and I love how Fizban's produces tables without its own magic items on it. The problem of course being you'd need some sort of table generating matrix, because what the whales among us want is a table for the DM who has everything; but what of the DM who has the DMG, XGtE, Fizban's but banned Tasha's entirely. Not every game plays with the same book, but every game wants tables that consolidate their books be it for treasures or random encounters. This is something I think would be an awesome online resource for WotC to put out (I'd say DDB should get on it but such tables would probably cross that original content line they can't cross or what have you).
And to put this comment more in line with the thread, as WotC goes more full bore into this "multiverse" concept (which would grant tables license to use different configurations of setting and lore books) tables as they're currently rendered tend to be inadequate. A neat "how to set up a random table" using percentile consideratons and CR etc could be a welcome editon to some core manual of WotC Projekt D&D 2024 RED, like maybe put it inside the lid or base of the box if they're going that direction in product design.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It would actually be pretty straightforward to implement in D&D beyond; just add a 'random' button to the magic item search, that produces something random within the filters you set. Doing it with hardcopy is harder, though you can do it well enough with a set of magic item cards.
And I understand that. And if I were in charge of D&D 5e, I would make all the new races have recommended ability scores. And I'm one of the guys that is pro-floating racial ASIs. I want to have my cake, but I also want you and the other people that want theirs to have it, too. I have no idea why WotC didn't do this, because it would just be adding a single sentence/line to each race, but if I were in charge, that's what I would do.
And if Racial ASIs are one of the main things that makes D&D be D&D for you, I do not understand or agree with that at all, but recognize that you should have the right to keep playing D&D how you want and have it supported by the core of the game.
I'm sad that the disappearance of Racial ASIs is making some people leave (or start to consider leaving) the hobby, and wish WotC would provide recommended ASIs for the races for those that do want them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The other thing that annoys me about the new trend for races is how scant the write ups are. Th three most recent races, Owlin, Herengone, and Fairy are all so… barren. There are next to no cultural entries for them and not even name suggestions. Bubkes. (Less than bubkes actually, since there isn’t even a 🐐💩 there.) WotC is making them so neutral that they’re generic and bland. Owlin are owl people, that’s basically all it says. Herengone are bunny people, that’s basically all it says. 🥱😴😪😮💨😪😮💨🤤
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think that it's mainly because those specific races are newer and don't have the same opportunity to gain lore as older races do. They'll probably get more lore later on (there is some scattered through The Wild Beyond the Witchlight on Harengon, for instance), and Owlin already have some lore in M:tG (which I really wish Strixhaven would have explained), but they're just lacking for now.
The most recent UA proved that not all newer races will have this low-quality and quantity of lore. There's lore on Plasmoids, Giff (or Jiff?), Autognomes, and Astral Elves. The Hadozee and Thri-Kreen don't get that much, and the Giff lore should really mention firearms, but it is there, and is quite a lot of lore in comparison to the Owlin, Harengon, and Fairy races.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's UA, though. No guarantee any of that makes the cut if they become official
It does feel like WotC has over-corrected and the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, going from "race A has to be X, Y and Z" to "race A is a blank slate and we won't tell you a thing about them so you can use them in any setting". There is a middle ground there when it comes to things like lore, they just haven't found it yet
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But why would they remove that? It's interesting fluff text. They don't even have an option on the UA surveys to rate lore, and there would be no reason to remove it.
I do think WotC doesn't fully understand what their players want, which is especially confusing because they have a ton of survey data about this topic. I'm against having racial ASIs be the only option in D&D 5e, and don't think cultural elements of races should be included in their racial stats (including alignment), but WotC for some reason decided to remove Age, Height/Weight tables, and similar stuff from racial mechanics when I've literally never seen anyone ask for any of that stuff.
I do think WotC doesn't understand their community, but there's also very few of these changes that I'm directly against. Even the ones that I don't understand the reason for (height/weight tables, typical age ranges, etc) I'm not angry/upset about, I'm just confused.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I've yet to be impressed by the questionnaire put out by WotC, they seem to be adept at gathering quantitative data points that can tell them anything they want to justify an editorial decision, but very little probing to develop a qualitative understanding of who's playing their game. That's not to say they don't necessarily have that qualitative understanding ... but they're not getting it from the surveys.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Here's a part 2 of the leak video Link
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.