I think the feats could use rebalancing, but after that I'd be okay with having them replace backgrounds I guess? I'd be happier if the aspects of the game that the background features imply will be relevant, would be more relevant. Like, I really dig what most of the background features are implying. They're evocative, they inform you about the world you're in, they're varied and they're non-combat features, which are always nice to have. But they don't tend to come up. The game isn't built around them.
Imagine if every town description named the temples, the healing spells available there, and the prices. (Now imagine if you couldn't just stay the night at an inn and fully heal, also.) Boom, Acolytes are cool now. You'd feel awesome playing an Acolyte. It'd give you this feeling of "man, I wish we were back at the temple instead of this dusty dungeon," which is fully appropriate for an Acolyte. It would put you in regular contact with the types of NPCs your character would interact with. All great stuff. Instead, you get a feature that lets you get something you don't need, at a place your DM hasn't made up. Neato. And a lot of them are like that. Solutions in search of problems.
It is also a political statement to complain about that, too, though. Why, exactly, should medieval or renaissance Europe (or fantasy literature based on the same) be considered the only valid source material?
I don't see how you would take what I said as a complaint, I was making an observation with an example that contradicts the idea that Wizards of the Coast is not politically driven, it most certainly is.
Particularly going by a premise of a setting with portals to entirely other worlds, why should all those worlds have Eurocentric cultures? Why should any of them have Eurocentric cultures? When the book has that kind of premise, how is it not a selling point to have writers from other cultures doing the majority of the writing?
I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned this is one more setting offering from a wide range of available settings. Your trying to suggest that I have some sort of problem with the book, I do not (other than having no interest in it), but this line of conversation does illustrate how adding politics into an RPG immediately shifts the conversation from what is important, the game, to what is not, the politics behind it. It creates instant conflict where assumptions are made and accusations come next. I do have an opinion about the specific politics, but this forum nor D&D hobby as a whole is a place to discuss such things.
This is a long way from 1e Oriental Adventures, which, although brilliant, seems to have been written by the almost certainly all white staff with input from some Japanese players seemingly being an afterthought (or at least on 'short notice').
Why would a Japanese player in the 21st century have special insight into a fantasy version of Medieval Japanese culture? What exactly about Oriental Adventures makes it seem like it was almost certainly written by an all-white staff?
I could understand seeking out a historian who might be able to provide you with additional details about the period, but realism was not the point of the book, it was to make sure all of the expectations of a player buying the book were met like being able to play Samurai's and Ninja's. This is a game for kids to play out their fantasies, not an opportunity for a history lesson.
It’s both. History and cultural diversity are important in D&D. If I had a choice between two books about the same culture, one of which was authentic and one of which wasn’t, I would definitely choose the former. I’m happy that Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel is being published and I can’t wait to integrate it into my multiverse.
Let's keep things on topic and avoid themes of discussion inappropriate for this forum, especially ones that could be harmful to others. If you are unfamiliar with the site rules, you can refresh yourself here
I'm all for cultural diversity and I don't have a problem with a team made up of X culture to make material for a fantasy version of X culture for D&D. My problem is that Radiant Citadel sounds stupid and the co-leader on the project explaining what it is, sounds to me like a guy who doesn't play D&D at all. Nothing he said about Radiant Citadel sounded even remotely interesting or D&Dish.
It's really simple.. I want the D and D in my D&D game. If you make something that doesn't get that, I have no interest in it, I don't care who made it or why or that it was made to be culturally diverse. All D&D products should be culturally diverse, that should be the default state of things, but they all need to be actually for D&D not some quasi theatre show. Sorry, I know some people like that, but for me this is a hard pass based on what we know about it right now.
You want to do cultural diversity right in D&D.. make sure it actually has something to do with D&D. For example, I use the World of Mystara as my campaign setting, it is dripping with cultural diversity and D&Dishness. You can play everything from an American Indian Shamani, to a Mongolian Horse Archer, from a Scandinavian Viking to a Polonysian Koa Warrior. Each Gazatteer for that setting dives deep into every aspect of every unique fantasy version of each culture all of which are unquestionably built around real-world cultures. It's all geared towards running D&D adventures with content for creating and playing classes dedicated to those cultures with awesome background information and locations. It's freaking awesome, it's D&D done right.
I'm actually really surprised that WotC hasn't remade the Mystara setting given that the primary focus of the entire world is the diversity of unique fantasy versions of real-world cultures.
Planescape as a setting was written in a format built for adventuring, it was an attempt to create a brooding, dark underbelly in the multiverse and the subject matter of Planescape was political, brutal and adult. Most importantly it was a setting, not an adventure. From what we know about The Radiant Citadel is that its first and foremost a series of adventures and the tone is very much "let's have fun exploring cultural diversity together" like a Saturday morning cartoon.
I wasn't a fan of Planescape either so I wouldn't necessarily feel any obligation to defend it, but The Radiant Citadel looks more like The Small World ride at Disneyland.
It's definitely not for me nor does it meet my requirements or desires for a D&D campaign setting.
Apparently, in every culture depicted in that new book, violence is simply not available as an option to settle disputes, and maybe never was. Yeah, that seems very D&D-like.....
That's not at all what was said. Where are you getting your information from?
In the central hub, the Radiant Citadel itself, the so-called Shield Bearers are bound by their code to stay neutral and not get directly involved in conflicts. The early look indicates that this isn't a perfect system. Some mention was made on stream about how this code can leave people vulnerable and might necessitate the intervention of adventurers.
But sure, go off I guess. Modern adventures don't even have fighting because they're all aimed at children, who famously hate the idea of fighting, which is why stuff like the Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, Steven Universe, Transformers, Call of Duty, Halo, Marvel, and dare I say D&D have all historically failed to land with kids. None of these properties have had any success in recent years, because young people just hate violence.
Folks, again, this thread is about what you would change in 5e not argue misunderstandings about a book none of us have actually seen. But to correct that misunderstanding, there's a lot of ranting about it being a pacifist book or whatever. From what I can tell that outrage is making a universal out of a detail. There's a faction in the game that does sort of work as a peacekeeping/rescue force the players _may_ join, among many other things they can do. The ShieldBearers aren't pacifists they just have strict rules of engagements. The outrage is sort of like negging Highlander because Immortals have a code where they don't fight on Holy Ground.
I think a discussion on "what you would fix about 5e" when it's most healthy is to discuss mechanics in the game. Trying to show horn what you think of as political or culture matters are matters of presentation and play style, and just lead to clashes of nonconstructive comments where all that's really being done is folks hoisting their ideology flags.
I'd be curious to see backgrounds and race/lineage merged more to allow more options. A player can choose a physical race/lineage, an environment, and an upbringing or occupation and that trifecta gets merged with a class decision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'd be curious to see backgrounds and race/lineage merged more to allow more options. A player can choose a physical race/lineage, an environment, and an upbringing or occupation and that trifecta gets merged with a class decision.
One of the things I really like about early D&D like 1e B/X is that there was no concept of race, but there was a heavy dose of cultural identity which was driven by the settings. An Elf, Dwarf and Halfling were all classes and you weren't defined by your race short of genetic traits like Darkvision or better hearing.
Your identity came from the location of your birth or upbringing so if you were playing in Mystara you might be an Elf from Alfheim, in which case you would be from that Elven culture but you could just as well be an Elf from The Atruaghin Clans in which you would be presumed adopted into that culture somehow instead. Backgrounds were also mainly narrative concepts which again created a lot of flexibility without added rules weight.
To me this approach is a lot healthier for the premise of the game for a number of reasons. First and foremost it puts the narrative first in character creation, which I think is really key to kicking off a campaign in a meaningful way. When players are tempted by mechanical choices, there is not only a tendency to optimize but a routine to doing it and it's contagious. If one player does it, it catches on and spreads.
Secondly, you are naturally indoctrinated into the gameworld when culture selection rather than creation becomes part of the process. Your options of culture selection is based on the setting so you choose from things that exist in the world. This again helps to keep the game from derailing into an anything-goes fantasy with every character being a white elephant and the brainchild of a player you have to try to figure out how to squeeze and connect into the game in a meaningful way.
Finally and perhaps more importantly, when choosing backgrounds or creating backgrounds, there is a more naturally specific depiction of the character when you're doing it from the perspective of a selected culture. If you are a folk hero and you are from The Artuaghin Clans, you are something very different than a folk hero from Alfheim, the story of cultures creates far more vivid and defined imagery which in turn makes backgrounds actually far broader things which in my opinion is a good thing.
I agree with you. Unless I’m missing something, your approach doesn’t sound bad at all.
I'd be curious to see backgrounds and race/lineage merged more to allow more options. A player can choose a physical race/lineage, an environment, and an upbringing or occupation and that trifecta gets merged with a class decision.
One of the things I really like about early D&D like 1e B/X is that there was no concept of race, but there was a heavy dose of cultural identity which was driven by the settings. An Elf, Dwarf and Halfling were all classes and you weren't defined by your race short of genetic traits like Darkvision or better hearing.
Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling were most certainly races. It just happened that if you were one of those races you didn't have any choice about class.
They should just call Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc."species" since some people get their noses twisted ot of joint over the traditional fantasy name of "race."
I was actually hoping the Gothic Lineages was announcing a system wide shift from race to lineage. Not sure why it didn't. Especially when, if you think about it the Gothic lineages Hexblood, Damper and Reborn aren't at least in two cases more made than born. Lineages actually seems more appropriate to everything else in the game currently organized under "race." I guess it could still happen.
They should just call Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc."species" since some people get their noses twisted ot of joint over the traditional fantasy name of "race."
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
Seriously, I ask. In all honesty, what draws you to D&D?
Gang, we can't do this again here. This debate has been done to death, and killed threads in the process. Let people have their opinions and move on.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
It doesn’t make sense for an intelligent species which lives in absolute darkness to not have some means of compensation for lack of normal vision.
As for Darkvision being a penalty for those races that don’t have it, that’s why you give other races something to compensate.
You completely ignored the part, the core of the argument, that says that people don't understand how dark vision works and make it much more powerfully than it should be. We do not live in a world where design makes sense as adhering to a logical structure. Definitely not since Racial ASIs just became a +2, +1 to any stats you please and now are completely decoupled from "race". Also, which races live in total darkness? The Underdark has glowing fungus and most subterranian races use lights because... you take a lot of penalties walking around in dim light.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
Seriously, I ask. In all honesty, what draws you to D&D?
Maybe the stories of heroics, of people fighting dragons and impossible monsters?
I don't have any problems with people playing out their Tolkein fantasies or parties full of Tabaxi or whatever, but when those characters are just human beings with powers, that's very uninteresting. Tolkein elves, by the way, aren't "Human beings with powers." They are beings with almost alien sensibilities because he took into account how an impossibly long lifespan would affect how people would see the world. Those differences in biology should affect societies and cultures. If it does, great, but in my experience, it rarely does. Seeing as it doesn't work as design, it should be pruned.
Races do little for D&D, in my opinion. An interesting character isn't good because they are an elf or a dragonborn or whatever. They're a good character because of who they are, not what they are. So, we should focus less on min/maxing race/class combinations and worry more about making the character more interesting and fun to play beyond their character sheet.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
It doesn’t make sense for an intelligent species which lives in absolute darkness to not have some means of compensation for lack of normal vision.
As for Darkvision being a penalty for those races that don’t have it, that’s why you give other races something to compensate.
You completely ignored the part, the core of the argument, that says that people don't understand how dark vision works and make it much more powerfully than it should be. We do not live in a world where design makes sense as adhering to a logical structure. Definitely not since Racial ASIs just became a +2, +1 to any stats you please and now are completely decoupled from "race". Also, which races live in total darkness? The Underdark has glowing fungus and most subterranian races use lights because... you take a lot of penalties walking around in dim light.
You are presuming that every table plays like your’s.
As for racial bonuses going to any stat you like, some rules are made to be ignored.
No, I don't. This thread is about what I would change in D&D. That's what I would change.
I would change two things. I would make it so major NPCs would have character sheets instead of stat blocks (although I think they already have optional rules for this cause in the stat blocks for the rivals in CotN it has in parentheses what class they are) and I would make it that the Domains of Dread in Ravenloft were linked together so people could travel back and forth through the Mists from one to the other.
This thread is not, never has been, and never will be the place to continue building unreadable thousand-post quote chains tearing each other apart for folks hating the Tasha's Cauldron changes or Diversity and Dragons. A hundred threads have been devoted to the subject already, and a hundred threads turned into fifty-page tire fires the mods locked. This never ends well, and the mods have asked more than once that people shut up and stop actively trying to derail the thread and drag it onto the subject of "I hate things Wizards is doing."
Choir said it now too, and he and I rarely see eye to eye. Just like he said, here: stop. It.
The one change I'd make is that WotC writers stop assuming we already know and agree with what they intend. Instead, they should be writing their books with the intent to help us understand clearly where they're coming from. Examples:
1. I've just finished a quest. Prior to the quest, the players were practically lead by the nose to a secret passageway that lead into the manor they're supposed to be clearing out of bad guys. Despite this, the passageway dumps them in the middle of the manor, and then all the descriptions assume they entered via the front door. Just another headache as I try to, on the fly, adjust all the descriptions they want me to read out to account for the fact that they've entered each room from the wrong direction. If you have multiple intended entrances, just use neutral language ("north wall", not "on your right").
2. I still can't make sense of the levelling up language when it describes how to increase your HP. The process makes sense, but if you don’t already know how it works, the wording doesn't make it clear how it works.
3. How many debates have we had over spells etc? The most recent is Control Winds. The name and flavour text says that you control the air, but the description of the effects imply that you just add a wind to the extant conditions. Which is it?
I'd like things to be written without the assumption that the reader knows and understands how things work or that they know what the writer knows or thinks should happen. Be unambiguous in descriptions as to what is intended. Sometimes it feels like the writer writes what makes sense to them, and then no one actually checks it with a fresh mind to see if it is clear to someone who doesn't have knowledge of what it intends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the feats could use rebalancing, but after that I'd be okay with having them replace backgrounds I guess? I'd be happier if the aspects of the game that the background features imply will be relevant, would be more relevant. Like, I really dig what most of the background features are implying. They're evocative, they inform you about the world you're in, they're varied and they're non-combat features, which are always nice to have. But they don't tend to come up. The game isn't built around them.
Imagine if every town description named the temples, the healing spells available there, and the prices. (Now imagine if you couldn't just stay the night at an inn and fully heal, also.) Boom, Acolytes are cool now. You'd feel awesome playing an Acolyte. It'd give you this feeling of "man, I wish we were back at the temple instead of this dusty dungeon," which is fully appropriate for an Acolyte. It would put you in regular contact with the types of NPCs your character would interact with. All great stuff. Instead, you get a feature that lets you get something you don't need, at a place your DM hasn't made up. Neato. And a lot of them are like that. Solutions in search of problems.
It’s both. History and cultural diversity are important in D&D. If I had a choice between two books about the same culture, one of which was authentic and one of which wasn’t, I would definitely choose the former. I’m happy that Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel is being published and I can’t wait to integrate it into my multiverse.
Let's keep things on topic and avoid themes of discussion inappropriate for this forum, especially ones that could be harmful to others. If you are unfamiliar with the site rules, you can refresh yourself here
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I do like Mystara.
That's not at all what was said. Where are you getting your information from?
In the central hub, the Radiant Citadel itself, the so-called Shield Bearers are bound by their code to stay neutral and not get directly involved in conflicts. The early look indicates that this isn't a perfect system. Some mention was made on stream about how this code can leave people vulnerable and might necessitate the intervention of adventurers.
But sure, go off I guess. Modern adventures don't even have fighting because they're all aimed at children, who famously hate the idea of fighting, which is why stuff like the Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, Steven Universe, Transformers, Call of Duty, Halo, Marvel, and dare I say D&D have all historically failed to land with kids. None of these properties have had any success in recent years, because young people just hate violence.
Folks, again, this thread is about what you would change in 5e not argue misunderstandings about a book none of us have actually seen. But to correct that misunderstanding, there's a lot of ranting about it being a pacifist book or whatever. From what I can tell that outrage is making a universal out of a detail. There's a faction in the game that does sort of work as a peacekeeping/rescue force the players _may_ join, among many other things they can do. The ShieldBearers aren't pacifists they just have strict rules of engagements. The outrage is sort of like negging Highlander because Immortals have a code where they don't fight on Holy Ground.
I think a discussion on "what you would fix about 5e" when it's most healthy is to discuss mechanics in the game. Trying to show horn what you think of as political or culture matters are matters of presentation and play style, and just lead to clashes of nonconstructive comments where all that's really being done is folks hoisting their ideology flags.
I'd be curious to see backgrounds and race/lineage merged more to allow more options. A player can choose a physical race/lineage, an environment, and an upbringing or occupation and that trifecta gets merged with a class decision.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I agree with you. Unless I’m missing something, your approach doesn’t sound bad at all.
Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling were most certainly races. It just happened that if you were one of those races you didn't have any choice about class.
I was actually hoping the Gothic Lineages was announcing a system wide shift from race to lineage. Not sure why it didn't. Especially when, if you think about it the Gothic lineages Hexblood, Damper and Reborn aren't at least in two cases more made than born. Lineages actually seems more appropriate to everything else in the game currently organized under "race." I guess it could still happen.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Species works.
Huh, that's a new one to me...
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
Gang, we can't do this again here. This debate has been done to death, and killed threads in the process. Let people have their opinions and move on.
You completely ignored the part, the core of the argument, that says that people don't understand how dark vision works and make it much more powerfully than it should be. We do not live in a world where design makes sense as adhering to a logical structure. Definitely not since Racial ASIs just became a +2, +1 to any stats you please and now are completely decoupled from "race". Also, which races live in total darkness? The Underdark has glowing fungus and most subterranian races use lights because... you take a lot of penalties walking around in dim light.
Maybe the stories of heroics, of people fighting dragons and impossible monsters?
I don't have any problems with people playing out their Tolkein fantasies or parties full of Tabaxi or whatever, but when those characters are just human beings with powers, that's very uninteresting. Tolkein elves, by the way, aren't "Human beings with powers." They are beings with almost alien sensibilities because he took into account how an impossibly long lifespan would affect how people would see the world. Those differences in biology should affect societies and cultures. If it does, great, but in my experience, it rarely does. Seeing as it doesn't work as design, it should be pruned.
Races do little for D&D, in my opinion. An interesting character isn't good because they are an elf or a dragonborn or whatever. They're a good character because of who they are, not what they are. So, we should focus less on min/maxing race/class combinations and worry more about making the character more interesting and fun to play beyond their character sheet.
No, I don't. This thread is about what I would change in D&D. That's what I would change.
I would change two things. I would make it so major NPCs would have character sheets instead of stat blocks (although I think they already have optional rules for this cause in the stat blocks for the rivals in CotN it has in parentheses what class they are) and I would make it that the Domains of Dread in Ravenloft were linked together so people could travel back and forth through the Mists from one to the other.
STOP IT.
STOP. IT.
This thread is not, never has been, and never will be the place to continue building unreadable thousand-post quote chains tearing each other apart for folks hating the Tasha's Cauldron changes or Diversity and Dragons. A hundred threads have been devoted to the subject already, and a hundred threads turned into fifty-page tire fires the mods locked. This never ends well, and the mods have asked more than once that people shut up and stop actively trying to derail the thread and drag it onto the subject of "I hate things Wizards is doing."
Choir said it now too, and he and I rarely see eye to eye. Just like he said, here: stop. It.
Please do not contact or message me.
The one change I'd make is that WotC writers stop assuming we already know and agree with what they intend. Instead, they should be writing their books with the intent to help us understand clearly where they're coming from. Examples:
1. I've just finished a quest. Prior to the quest, the players were practically lead by the nose to a secret passageway that lead into the manor they're supposed to be clearing out of bad guys. Despite this, the passageway dumps them in the middle of the manor, and then all the descriptions assume they entered via the front door. Just another headache as I try to, on the fly, adjust all the descriptions they want me to read out to account for the fact that they've entered each room from the wrong direction. If you have multiple intended entrances, just use neutral language ("north wall", not "on your right").
2. I still can't make sense of the levelling up language when it describes how to increase your HP. The process makes sense, but if you don’t already know how it works, the wording doesn't make it clear how it works.
3. How many debates have we had over spells etc? The most recent is Control Winds. The name and flavour text says that you control the air, but the description of the effects imply that you just add a wind to the extant conditions. Which is it?
I'd like things to be written without the assumption that the reader knows and understands how things work or that they know what the writer knows or thinks should happen. Be unambiguous in descriptions as to what is intended. Sometimes it feels like the writer writes what makes sense to them, and then no one actually checks it with a fresh mind to see if it is clear to someone who doesn't have knowledge of what it intends.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.