I'd like to see a character creation process where you pick your species, culture, and background. So, for example, if you want to play a halfling orphan raised by elves, you get to pick the elven culture package (which, as of now, is the weapon training and languages, I guess).
Excuse me while I drop 15 guajillo chiles into this blender
*inhale*
.
.
.
The people who like the new goblinkin in MMM are plebeians that lack good taste and just like being fed power creep junk food for their uber-power builds. They are folks who haven't actually played goblinkin in any real capacity except for maybe oneshots. Those who like this new """"""""""""""""""'lore""""""""""""""""""' and say stuff such as "I'm so glad goblins are finally people!" are folks who never played goblins and never will play goblins because they never wanted to in the first place because they couldn't bother to think for themselves and see these peoples as peoples. If you only saw them as monsters or jokes that's you and your DM's fault for only playing them that way and giving them no identity in your games. Go back to playing elves if you want ****in' fairies and leave my goblins alone.
Goblins were originally faeries. Historically, folklorically, they've always been fey creatures. The whole "all greenskins are one-note evil cannon fodder with no personalities, no ambitions beyond petty Saturday morning cartoon villainy, and no redeeming qualities whatsoever" thing is something D&D, SPECIFICALLY, did to goblins and their assorted kin. M3 did nothing but restore their fey origins to the various goblin species. If someone hates the fey because they're a sad colorless person with no whimsy or merriment in their soul, there's a dozen different ways to refluff 'you have advantage against being charmed'.
Excuse me while I drop 15 guajillo chiles into this blender
*inhale*
.
.
.
The people who like the new goblinkin in MMM are plebeians that lack good taste and just like being fed power creep junk food for their uber-power builds. They are folks who haven't actually played goblinkin in any real capacity except for maybe oneshots. Those who like this new """"""""""""""""""'lore""""""""""""""""""' and say stuff such as "I'm so glad goblins are finally people!" are folks who never played goblins and never will play goblins because they never wanted to in the first place because they couldn't bother to think for themselves and see these peoples as peoples. If you only saw them as monsters or jokes that's you and your DM's fault for only playing them that way and giving them no identity in your games. Go back to playing elves if you want ****in' fairies and leave my goblins alone.
I don't really see what's bad about liking a specific D&D race, or being glad to see it in an official book.
(Guys, remember that this is hot takes thread, there will be people who have wild opinions and you can disagree with them, but I'm just saying this in advance, don't turn this into a full blown argument)
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
A lot of people Excalibur Face at anything and everything fey, fairy, and Feywild. They consider the whole thing nothing more than large-scale industrialized trolling and an excuse for DMs to **** with their players at the expense of the plot. I've heard a couple of folks say that damn near verbatim: "the Feywild is nothing but an excuse for bad DMs to troll their players instead of providing a plot". Much like the demographic that just gets immediately upset, scornful and dismissive any time a Critical Role product happens, some folks just refuse to truck with anything fey for any reason. Telling those people that their old-standby Evil Villainous Greenskins are all fey creatures now as well as not inherently villainous is...well. You've seen the nine-odd months of ongoing forum kerfuffle over M3 Changing Stuff.
Well, we can blame Tolkien for D&D goblins. Historically speaking:
It's not clear where Tolkien got the word 'orc' from.
Isn't it pretty widely accepted that it was probably from Beowulf describing Grendel as an "Orcneas"? There's a lot in Middle Earth that takes inspiration from Beowulf, after all.
The rest of your post is pretty accurate, though. As a side note, and Goblins as we know them today didn't exist in Tolkien's works. "Goblin" was just the first name that Tolkien used in the Hobbit before settling on "Orcs" in the Lord of the Rings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The rest of your post is pretty accurate, though. As a side note, and Goblins as we know them today didn't exist in Tolkien's works. "Goblin" was just the first name that Tolkien used in the Hobbit before settling on "Orcs" in the Lord of the Rings.
Yes, but the Hobbit is well enough known for its use of Goblin to infect D&D.
The rest of your post is pretty accurate, though. As a side note, and Goblins as we know them today didn't exist in Tolkien's works. "Goblin" was just the first name that Tolkien used in the Hobbit before settling on "Orcs" in the Lord of the Rings.
Yes, but the Hobbit is well enough known for its use of Goblin to infect D&D.
Exactly. Because Gygax probably didn't understand the fact that Goblins and Orcs in Middle Earth are synonymous. That's why D&D Hobgoblins are closer to Tolkien's Orcs than D&D Orcs are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The Volo's lore for goblins is actually pretty neat. And pretty nuanced. There's also a lot more of it than what MMM has. But it is basically only applicable to the Forgotten Realms, so I'm okay with establishing a new "normal" for goblins. I would probably still use the FR lore for whatever setting I use, unless that setting has a particularly inspiring version. Because I don't think the fey version is particularly compelling, and I don't like giving magic resistance to chumps.
My Spicy opinion is that there are plenty of races and they need to stop adding them or wasting time of updating them(for foolish lore even though dungeon and dragons has its own lore to begin with), and instead should be focusing on either coming up with new classes or more sub-classes.
(And to the lot of you that are only going to fixate on one part of this comment, my opinion ain't going to change, so keep your preaching to the temples.)
My hot take. Dragonlance kind of lame. I mean sure just some war with dragons is the whole backstory and yet tiamat and bahamut just aren't here even though they are a big part of the D&D multiverse. And the orbs of dragonkind are plot devices that do nothing (If this changes in 5e don't get mad, also don't get mad anyway. Also I don't think Dragonlance should be removed)
My cults are dead, let's talk about myself where they used to be. I am The_cool_Elsecaller, a transfem lesbian who is still in the closet to all but a few people I know IRL. I enjoy video games, reading, writing, and sleeping. Feel free to PM me if you want writing advice or just want to talk.
"Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination"
My hot take: there are too many races in D&D, and a bunch of them should be deleted or set aside. In particular:
Half-Elf, Half-Orc: no need for half-anything. Play an elf or an orc.
Sub-races: I'd be tempted to delete them and give everyone a starting feat, with the sub-races being feats.
Gnome, Halfling: do they really need to be distinct?
Tiefling, Aasimar, Genasi: plane-touched should be a feat, similar to fey touched.
Goliath: I'd probably make giant-blood a feat too.
Bugbear, Hobgoblin: I'd probably just allow goblins to be small or medium (and, um... feats)
Githyanki, Githzerai: psionic should be a feat too...
Aarakokra, Harengon, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Minotaur, Shifter, Tabaxi, Tortle, Yuan-Ti: might be merged into some sort of 'beast-kin' (somewhat lower value than the above).
My hot take: there are too many races in D&D, and a bunch of them should be deleted or set aside. In particular:
Half-Elf, Half-Orc: no need for half-anything. Play an elf or an orc.
Sub-races: I'd be tempted to delete them and give everyone a starting feat, with the sub-races being feats.
Gnome, Halfling: do they really need to be distinct?
Tiefling, Aasimar, Genasi: plane-touched should be a feat, similar to fey touched.
Goliath: I'd probably make giant-blood a feat too.
Bugbear, Hobgoblin: I'd probably just allow goblins to be small or medium (and, um... feats)
Githyanki, Githzerai: psionic should be a feat too...
Aarakokra, Harengon, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Minotaur, Shifter, Tabaxi, Tortle, Yuan-Ti: might be merged into some sort of 'beast-kin' (somewhat lower value than the above).
A part of the game of D&D is defined by it's various racial options. In my opinion at least, there is no good reason to get rid of certain races, and give people less options to choose from.
I like seeing cool new races and being able to play different ones. If you don't like the race, you don't have to play it. But there are people who like those races and getting rid of them would just mean they aren't able to play something they enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
My hot take: there are too many races in D&D, and a bunch of them should be deleted or set aside. In particular:
Half-Elf, Half-Orc: no need for half-anything. Play an elf or an orc.
Sub-races: I'd be tempted to delete them and give everyone a starting feat, with the sub-races being feats.
Gnome, Halfling: do they really need to be distinct?
Tiefling, Aasimar, Genasi: plane-touched should be a feat, similar to fey touched.
Goliath: I'd probably make giant-blood a feat too.
Bugbear, Hobgoblin: I'd probably just allow goblins to be small or medium (and, um... feats)
Githyanki, Githzerai: psionic should be a feat too...
Aarakokra, Harengon, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Minotaur, Shifter, Tabaxi, Tortle, Yuan-Ti: might be merged into some sort of 'beast-kin' (somewhat lower value than the above).
I’d rather play a half elf or half orc than an elf or an orc as the mixed parentage makes for all kinds of interesting character concepts. A half orc raised by their human parent amongst humans and a half orc raised by their orc parent amongst orcs ought to be quite different people IMHO. Same for a half elf, depending on where they were raised and by whom. A mixed couple who raise the child together presents other compelling cultural implications to explore. There are also the ones who end up orphaned and raised by…well, you never know in D&D; could be all kinds of neat ideas there too. For me, full elves and full orcs are boring by comparison.
And yes, gnomes and halflings are distinct. Halflings are small, jovial humans, more or less. Gnomes are…weird. There, I said it LOL
No subspecies/variant species of existing critters?
No shortstacks?
Heh. In one hot take, you managed to wipe out every last single active character I'm playing, and I think every character I've ever played in any semi-successful campaign. Clean sweep, Pantagruel. Well done. Lot of folks would tip their hats to you.
No subspecies/variant species of existing critters?
No shortstacks?
Heh. In one hot take, you managed to wipe out every last single active character I'm playing, and I think every character I've ever played in any semi-successful campaign. Clean sweep, Pantagruel. Well done. Lot of folks would tip their hats to you.
Nah, it's more of a change in style than actually removing options
Tiefling becomes Planetouched (Infernal) -- which lets you have a tiefling elf if that's your thing.
Tabaxi is Beastkin (Leopard) or some such. I'm less than sure of the value of grouping the bestial races together, though.
Subspecies generally becomes a feat; you can be a mountain dwarf, or a mountain elf, or a mountain human, or...
Not sure which 'shortstack' you're referring to, my point is mostly that halfling and gnome aren't terribly distinct concepts and might as well be merged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd like to see a character creation process where you pick your species, culture, and background. So, for example, if you want to play a halfling orphan raised by elves, you get to pick the elven culture package (which, as of now, is the weapon training and languages, I guess).
At least one birdman NPC should have a cockney accent and be named Harry Coker.
Excuse me while I drop 15 guajillo chiles into this blender
*inhale*
.
.
.
The people who like the new goblinkin in MMM are plebeians that lack good taste and just like being fed power creep junk food for their uber-power builds. They are folks who haven't actually played goblinkin in any real capacity except for maybe oneshots. Those who like this new """"""""""""""""""'lore""""""""""""""""""' and say stuff such as "I'm so glad goblins are finally people!" are folks who never played goblins and never will play goblins because they never wanted to in the first place because they couldn't bother to think for themselves and see these peoples as peoples. If you only saw them as monsters or jokes that's you and your DM's fault for only playing them that way and giving them no identity in your games. Go back to playing elves if you want ****in' fairies and leave my goblins alone.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU









Spoilers:
Goblins were originally faeries. Historically, folklorically, they've always been fey creatures. The whole "all greenskins are one-note evil cannon fodder with no personalities, no ambitions beyond petty Saturday morning cartoon villainy, and no redeeming qualities whatsoever" thing is something D&D, SPECIFICALLY, did to goblins and their assorted kin. M3 did nothing but restore their fey origins to the various goblin species. If someone hates the fey because they're a sad colorless person with no whimsy or merriment in their soul, there's a dozen different ways to refluff 'you have advantage against being charmed'.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well, we can blame Tolkien for D&D goblins. Historically speaking:
I don't really see what's bad about liking a specific D&D race, or being glad to see it in an official book.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.(Guys, remember that this is hot takes thread, there will be people who have wild opinions and you can disagree with them, but I'm just saying this in advance, don't turn this into a full blown argument)
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
A lot of people Excalibur Face at anything and everything fey, fairy, and Feywild. They consider the whole thing nothing more than large-scale industrialized trolling and an excuse for DMs to **** with their players at the expense of the plot. I've heard a couple of folks say that damn near verbatim: "the Feywild is nothing but an excuse for bad DMs to troll their players instead of providing a plot". Much like the demographic that just gets immediately upset, scornful and dismissive any time a Critical Role product happens, some folks just refuse to truck with anything fey for any reason. Telling those people that their old-standby Evil Villainous Greenskins are all fey creatures now as well as not inherently villainous is...well. You've seen the nine-odd months of ongoing forum kerfuffle over M3 Changing Stuff.
Please do not contact or message me.
Isn't it pretty widely accepted that it was probably from Beowulf describing Grendel as an "Orcneas"? There's a lot in Middle Earth that takes inspiration from Beowulf, after all.
The rest of your post is pretty accurate, though. As a side note, and Goblins as we know them today didn't exist in Tolkien's works. "Goblin" was just the first name that Tolkien used in the Hobbit before settling on "Orcs" in the Lord of the Rings.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes, but the Hobbit is well enough known for its use of Goblin to infect D&D.
Exactly. Because Gygax probably didn't understand the fact that Goblins and Orcs in Middle Earth are synonymous. That's why D&D Hobgoblins are closer to Tolkien's Orcs than D&D Orcs are.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The Volo's lore for goblins is actually pretty neat. And pretty nuanced. There's also a lot more of it than what MMM has. But it is basically only applicable to the Forgotten Realms, so I'm okay with establishing a new "normal" for goblins. I would probably still use the FR lore for whatever setting I use, unless that setting has a particularly inspiring version. Because I don't think the fey version is particularly compelling, and I don't like giving magic resistance to chumps.
My Spicy opinion is that there are plenty of races and they need to stop adding them or wasting time of updating them(for foolish lore even though dungeon and dragons has its own lore to begin with), and instead should be focusing on either coming up with new classes or more sub-classes.
(And to the lot of you that are only going to fixate on one part of this comment, my opinion ain't going to change, so keep your preaching to the temples.)
My hot take. Dragonlance kind of lame. I mean sure just some war with dragons is the whole backstory and yet tiamat and bahamut just aren't here even though they are a big part of the D&D multiverse. And the orbs of dragonkind are plot devices that do nothing (If this changes in 5e don't get mad, also don't get mad anyway. Also I don't think Dragonlance should be removed)
My cults are dead, let's talk about myself where they used to be. I am The_cool_Elsecaller, a transfem lesbian who is still in the closet to all but a few people I know IRL. I enjoy video games, reading, writing, and sleeping. Feel free to PM me if you want writing advice or just want to talk.
"Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination"
-First Ideal of the Knights Radiant
Extended Signature. Real Extended Signature
My hot take: there are too many races in D&D, and a bunch of them should be deleted or set aside. In particular:
A part of the game of D&D is defined by it's various racial options. In my opinion at least, there is no good reason to get rid of certain races, and give people less options to choose from.
I like seeing cool new races and being able to play different ones. If you don't like the race, you don't have to play it. But there are people who like those races and getting rid of them would just mean they aren't able to play something they enjoy.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I’d rather play a half elf or half orc than an elf or an orc as the mixed parentage makes for all kinds of interesting character concepts. A half orc raised by their human parent amongst humans and a half orc raised by their orc parent amongst orcs ought to be quite different people IMHO. Same for a half elf, depending on where they were raised and by whom. A mixed couple who raise the child together presents other compelling cultural implications to explore. There are also the ones who end up orphaned and raised by…well, you never know in D&D; could be all kinds of neat ideas there too. For me, full elves and full orcs are boring by comparison.
And yes, gnomes and halflings are distinct. Halflings are small, jovial humans, more or less. Gnomes are…weird. There, I said it LOL
Valid :D
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Man.
No tiffles?
No tabaxi?
No subspecies/variant species of existing critters?
No shortstacks?
Heh. In one hot take, you managed to wipe out every last single active character I'm playing, and I think every character I've ever played in any semi-successful campaign. Clean sweep, Pantagruel. Well done. Lot of folks would tip their hats to you.
Please do not contact or message me.
Nah, it's more of a change in style than actually removing options