My main concern is that One D&D will not be able to even try to address fixing certain issues. The Druid is an interesting but not very popular class. The changes to Sneak Attack were disliked and imperfect, but they also sought to add fix a way that the mechanic could be made significantly more powerful in order to buff the class overall.
There are plenty of other areas where 5e struggles and plenty of other things that I wish the developers had experimented with trying to improve. However, if Treantmonk is correct and One D&D really is "Nearing the End of Experimentation", then it's likely that a lot of the problems with the current edition of the game will go unsolved.
I am really exited to see what the 2024 PHB brings, but I wish there was no 2024 deadline for One D&D and that there were more playtests, more experimentation, and more big changes being tried out so that we can find ways to drastically improve some of the less good parts of D&D in ways that almost everyone wants.
I happen to think Treantmonk has outlasted his own usefulness to the game. He came to notoriety back when system mastery felt essential to play games like D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st edition. Not that I think his guides actually focused much on system mastery. It was broad, "here's what's most likely to be useful to you," stuff; regardless of what kind of game you're playing in.
The reality is, if the 2014 PH is a fall 2024 release, there's plenty more time for experimentation. Each class, save for monk, has had a pass. That's 11/48 subclasses down. We should have a playtest packet every two months, which means one probably in the next week. Then more in August, October, and December. That's enough time to give each class two more passes, and to cover another 24 subclasses. Everything could have a pass done by next April, with feedback done by the end of May. And, admittedly, that would be close with a publication date by the end of the year. Forget his supposed schedule. There have been printing issues across the board for every industry.
It's also possible that classes and subclasses reverting to the 2014 progression is a red herring. If they only need to test subclasses, they can do so by just releasing them for the 2014 book and string us along for the 2024 release. Or they won't even bother testing each one publicly, since they didn't for 2014.
It's a speculation video intended to drive traffic, as so many must do or they risk losing their place in the algorithm. That doesn't make it insightful.
The super long lives and innate magic of elves? Dwarven stone sense? Orcish endurance? You think that wouldn't make a difference in how they develop and where their priorities are?
Long lives would in fact have cultural effects, but existing lore does a bad job of representing it anyway so it's not much of a loss. The effects of innate magic are mostly obvious and probably aren't going to have cultural effects, though they might have economic effects which, again, existing lore does a bad job with.
Dwarven stone sense, again, has no particular cultural effect. It just means they're particularly suited to living underground, which is adequately covered by the playtest lore.
Orcish Relentless Endurance... doesn't seem relevant at all.
I don't think inherent magic has an obvious impact. Minor magic is, at best, a tool. They're less reliant on tools those spells can replace, but they aren't without need for them. Longer lifespans give them perspective that shorter-lived species do not, and I think that is the more self-evident one. Assuming everyone wants to leave their mark on the world, longer-lived species have more time. They can afford to be patient. It's the shorter-lived species who can't, and so they tend to become more aggressive. They take risks, maybe even shortcuts, and are expansionist.
As for dwarves, any culture that lives predominantly underground isn't dependent on solar cycles. Their cities don't need to sleep, so it's safe to assume they never do. They might not even have farms, at least on the surface, which could mean hunter-gatherer culture instead of an agrarian one. And even with darkvision, they'll want things to be brightly lit. Nobody wants to look at everything in perpetual grayscale. This means torches, bioluminescent moss, and possible spells like continual flame.
I would think relentless endurance is perhaps the most obvious. Orcs can take a beating and keep going. They make great warriors. Whether that's for amusement or military conquest, they're darn good at it. If for no other reason than they last longer than their peers. I can see many being drawn to serve as gladiators, professional soldiers, and even simple town guards. A "proud warrior culture" which might have a schism between public service and personal glory. And, of course, you'll want people who celebrate these achievements. So their art will reflect this as well. And they may very well have heirloom weapons and armor.
When it comes to these traits, think about what these people can do with them. How they can best put their natural talents to work for them will help drive culture.
Not to mention that, to a long-lived species, a low fertility rate might be highly beneficial to serve as a natural population control. If you live for several centuries, after all, that could result in one woman having a literal army squads worth of kids if her fertility rate was similar to humans. But with a lower rate comes the issue that, if the child dies, it might take years or even literal DECADES of non-stop trying for a baby to succeed even once. The result would likely be that the society would highly value every individual but also be extremely risk and change adverse simply because even a few lives lost would take forever to replace. They would also probably favor 'safer' forms of combat like ranged combat because not only would they have the time to practice endlessly but replacing any elf that dies can be a lengthy process.
At least that's one potential impact. But on the whole, and related to the original point, I feel like ditching macro-level cultural norms and the like just because that may not hold true on the individual level is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Not only do I feel like it goes a long way towards making each race flavored and distinct and unique and people (hopefully) want to play them; but the alternative is a steadily growing homoginization that benefits no one and only serves to make all characters more mundane on the whole.
At least that's one potential impact. But on the whole, and related to the original point, I feel like ditching macro-level cultural norms and the like just because that may not hold true on the individual level is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
That's not the reason to not have racial cultures. It's because macro-level cultural norms based on race are stupid; there's no reason for nonhuman races to have a unified culture, or even a culture that's distinct from the society they're a part of.
At least that's one potential impact. But on the whole, and related to the original point, I feel like ditching macro-level cultural norms and the like just because that may not hold true on the individual level is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
That's not the reason to not have racial cultures. It's because macro-level cultural norms based on race are stupid; there's no reason for nonhuman races to have a unified culture, or even a culture that's distinct from the society they're a part of.
I hate to disagree but we know that's not true. There's countless upon countless examples IRL where ethnic groups have held distinct cultures different from whatever society dominates them. And that's just ethnic groups. They're still human. Imagine throwing actual, distinct, racial differences into the mix.
As for 'unified culture', it seems you're confusing, possibly intentionally, the macro with the individual. I.E. Since there's no reason a specific Englishman would say 'God save the King/Queen' and like tea that means if we had an English 'race' we couldn't list something like that as a defining feature. Otherwise you're going to need to be more clear and specific as to what you're saying.
I hate to disagree but we know that's not true. There's countless upon countless examples IRL where ethnic groups have held distinct cultures different from whatever society dominates them. And that's just ethnic groups. They're still human. Imagine throwing actual, distinct, racial differences into the mix.
Different groups have most certainly retained distinct cultures -- but those cultures were distinct before they were living in the same area and don't have anything to do with genetics. Designing cultures and figuring out how they've interacted in the past is a key part of worldbuilding, but it really has no reason to be tied to race.
Plus, if we look IRL, we can see that, while a certain trait may not hold true on the individual level, it can hold true on the macro level even if said trait is extremely negative. *points to North Korea* That's sort of why I feel really irked by the whole thing. Cause we've seen tons of empires dominated heavily by a single ethnicity/culture/etc throughout history IRL where plenty of things that we'd consider horrible today were considered 'normal'. Like I said, I feel most people understand that this doesn't hold true on the individual level, especially if a character is away from said culture specifically because they reject it, but would hold true on the macro level. So the vast majority of drow belonging to an evil aligned matriarchy that worships Lolth... that's not actually all that odd.
Just a quick FYI an "Empire" is defined as an ethnically diverse sprawling area controlled by a single governmental system. I think you mean to say that there are "countries" that are culturally homogeneous which is true, however homogeneous cultures defined by aggression rarely last very long - either they are successful in their aggression and become a culturally diverse empire, or they fail and are destroyed. Homogeneous cultures only last a long time if they are isolationist.
Sort of. While America is ethnically diverse I think it would be a stretch to claim there isn't an American culture. I suspect the same was for every empire.
Edit to add and most Empires were dominated by a single ethnicity for much of their run. While they may have a ton of groups in them, the people in power come from the original ethnicity for a quite a while.
The USA is debatable in it's claim to Empire. The main arguments for America as an Empire is it's overseas territories like Puerto Rico which I think you'd find it a stretch to claim that their culture is exactly the same as the mainland USA culture. The major source of debate are the 100s of overseas military bases and the resulting political and cultural influence on the host nations of those bases - is that coupled with NATO and the American Hegemony sufficiently similar to e.g. the UK while under Roman occupation to count as Empire or not.
There are also arguments with respect to the First Nations - or "Indians" and "Eskimos" as 'mericans call them - which I think again you would have a hard time arguing that a Cherokee individual born and raised on a reservation has the exact same culture as a white American, and then lastly the descendants of enslaved Black Americans - again I think you'd have a hard time arguing that they have the same cultural identity as white Americans.
Empires were POLITICALLY dominated by a particular ethnicity but that is all. The majority of people living inside the Roman Empire were not Romans, not even Italians (who aren't a homogeneous culture either). There were more Egyptians in the Roman Empire than Italians for most of its history. The Mongol Empire was a majority Chinese population. The Aztec Empire included the Culhuaque, Cuitlahuaque, Mixquica, Xochimilca, Chalca, Tepaneca, Acolhuaque, and Mexica. The Ottoman Empire contained more Africans and Europeans than it did Turks.
I hate to disagree but we know that's not true. There's countless upon countless examples IRL where ethnic groups have held distinct cultures different from whatever society dominates them. And that's just ethnic groups. They're still human. Imagine throwing actual, distinct, racial differences into the mix.
Different groups have most certainly retained distinct cultures -- but those cultures were distinct before they were living in the same area and don't have anything to do with genetics. Designing cultures and figuring out how they've interacted in the past is a key part of worldbuilding, but it really has no reason to be tied to race.
It’s not mandatory, but it’s a very common trope that different races originated in different geographic regions, and it’s easier to give setting neutral cultural trends based on race than anything else. It’s a useful tool for quick worldbuilding and roleplay diversification, and most other options for cultural models would be tied to nuances and details of a particular setting, which they’re trying to move away from.
I hate to disagree but we know that's not true. There's countless upon countless examples IRL where ethnic groups have held distinct cultures different from whatever society dominates them. And that's just ethnic groups. They're still human. Imagine throwing actual, distinct, racial differences into the mix.
Different groups have most certainly retained distinct cultures -- but those cultures were distinct before they were living in the same area and don't have anything to do with genetics. Designing cultures and figuring out how they've interacted in the past is a key part of worldbuilding, but it really has no reason to be tied to race.
Humankind isn't a monoculture on Earth, and neither are the other species. In the Forgotten Realms alone, there are seven Dethek (dwarvish) dialects. You can bet your bottom dollar they each have their own culture attached.
That doesn't mean their cultures are similar to elves, halflings, or other species. Some broad strokes can be reasonably assumed without diminishing their variety. Each of these species, and more, can do things humans cannot. There's no reason to assume their cultures are just like ours.
It’s not mandatory, but it’s a very common trope that different races originated in different geographic regions, and it’s easier to give setting neutral cultural trends based on race than anything else.
There is no such thing as setting neutral cultural trends.
It’s not mandatory, but it’s a very common trope that different races originated in different geographic regions, and it’s easier to give setting neutral cultural trends based on race than anything else.
There is no such thing as setting neutral cultural trends.
Not entirely, but race examples are easier to adapt across various settings. And, to expand on a point not included in your quote, they need to start somewhere, if only to provide tools/examples to work with.
Not entirely, but race examples are easier to adapt across various settings.
No, they really aren't. It's possible to create an interesting culture that actually interacts meaningfully with species traits, but (a) D&D has never done that well, and (b) most 'species' or 'races' in D&D are just humans in funny hats anyway, they simply aren't different enough from human to naturally produce significantly different cultures, at most you're looking at some economic effects that D&D is utterly uninterested in modeling.
Not entirely, but race examples are easier to adapt across various settings.
No, they really aren't. It's possible to create an interesting culture that actually interacts meaningfully with species traits, but (a) D&D has never done that well, and (b) most 'species' or 'races' in D&D are just humans in funny hats anyway, they simply aren't different enough from human to naturally produce significantly different cultures, at most you're looking at some economic effects that D&D is utterly uninterested in modeling.
Counterpoint: most species shouldn't be just humans in funny hats.
Laziness should not be an excuse to omit interesting writing.
Counterpoint: most species shouldn't be just humans in funny hats.
Great, then delete dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, and orcs, and come up with new species that are actually original ideas.
I hope that's not intended to be read facetiously.
It could be read either way. Honestly, if you want to get rid of problematic racial stereotypes you should kill off all of those species, but trying to do that would make the current complaints look tiny.
Not entirely, but race examples are easier to adapt across various settings.
No, they really aren't. It's possible to create an interesting culture that actually interacts meaningfully with species traits, but (a) D&D has never done that well, and (b) most 'species' or 'races' in D&D are just humans in funny hats anyway, they simply aren't different enough from human to naturally produce significantly different cultures, at most you're looking at some economic effects that D&D is utterly uninterested in modeling.
Counterpoint: most species shouldn't be just humans in funny hats.
Laziness should not be an excuse to omit interesting writing.
Humans in funny hats are the easiest for people to empathize with, which is crucial for effective story telling. And let's be honest, 90% of players and DMs don't have the time or interest in portraying completely alien beings. Instead, we borrow cultures we are already familiar with and adapt them into our fictional worlds. It's just far more efficient to communicate to your players "They're like Vikings" than to spend a hour trying to explain a totally novel culture you've invented. D&D is a game to be played, not an alternate reality to be studied.
I would say nothing in D&D 5e is a completely original idea. Everything is borrowed, stolen, adapted, or inspired from existing culture(s). Strahd von Zarovich is blatantly Eastern-European inspired, the Vestani are Roma, Theros is thinly veiled ancient Greece, Elves are Oriental, Dwarves are Scottish, Orcs are Mongols/Apache.
I happen to think Treantmonk has outlasted his own usefulness to the game. He came to notoriety back when system mastery felt essential to play games like D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st edition. Not that I think his guides actually focused much on system mastery. It was broad, "here's what's most likely to be useful to you," stuff; regardless of what kind of game you're playing in.
The reality is, if the 2014 PH is a fall 2024 release, there's plenty more time for experimentation. Each class, save for monk, has had a pass. That's 11/48 subclasses down. We should have a playtest packet every two months, which means one probably in the next week. Then more in August, October, and December. That's enough time to give each class two more passes, and to cover another 24 subclasses. Everything could have a pass done by next April, with feedback done by the end of May. And, admittedly, that would be close with a publication date by the end of the year. Forget his supposed schedule. There have been printing issues across the board for every industry.
It's also possible that classes and subclasses reverting to the 2014 progression is a red herring. If they only need to test subclasses, they can do so by just releasing them for the 2014 book and string us along for the 2024 release. Or they won't even bother testing each one publicly, since they didn't for 2014.
It's a speculation video intended to drive traffic, as so many must do or they risk losing their place in the algorithm. That doesn't make it insightful.
That's fair. However, I still wish we had even more time to playtest and experiment for bigger changes, and you know that the developers will probably want to have people look at something that isn't too far away from the some the ideas they will see in the final release. Also if we do have six more packets, as you seem to think we will if they go on a schedule of a new release every two months through April, then we would have to have four classes per playtest. We would also have to have six-ish subclasses per playtest too, and that's a bit awkward given that some classes would probably feature multiple subclasses while some might not need to.
You're probably right that Treantmonk isn't too reliable, and I should've watched the video he was referring to before using the information. However, Jeremy Crawford does say "We are nearing the end of the first chapter of our playtest process... Which was 'let's see what the appetite for change is.' People are then going to see... many familiar things from the 2014 books but now with the new material incorporated." (Quote taken from this video, 2 minutes 35 seconds in.)
Now, I think you're right that that doesn't necessarily mean experimentation for new stuff to be added in for One D&D is all but over. However, it does imply that they are starting to work on combining things and making things fit in more instead of just focusing on big new innovations. It's possible I'm misinterpreting his comments or making too big conclusions from them. However, I'm not panicking and saying we won't get through enough material. My point is that potentially not having time to get cool new mechanics that change a lot in from this point on is something that is reasonable to be concerned about.
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.
I'd like they would work out deeply and better more complex rules like the shown at DMG. We have options for shield, flank, cure wounds, natural healing (not going to use that magical overpowered full heal everything long rest, thanks).
But I miss something more about the injuries and massive damage sections, they need more working out, in other words, options for deadly combat. That would be the solution for those who don't want to be everything based on plain maths. We need a real table (the injuries one is not appropriate), with a criticals table or tables (maybe another one for "big/special" creatures with lesser severity) with results based on some math taking into account the attacker and defender plus the d20 roll, with results from making lose the reaction to instant death.
Not entirely, but race examples are easier to adapt across various settings.
No, they really aren't. It's possible to create an interesting culture that actually interacts meaningfully with species traits, but (a) D&D has never done that well, and (b) most 'species' or 'races' in D&D are just humans in funny hats anyway, they simply aren't different enough from human to naturally produce significantly different cultures, at most you're looking at some economic effects that D&D is utterly uninterested in modeling.
Counterpoint: most species shouldn't be just humans in funny hats.
Laziness should not be an excuse to omit interesting writing.
Humans in funny hats are the easiest for people to empathize with, which is crucial for effective story telling. And let's be honest, 90% of players and DMs don't have the time or interest in portraying completely alien beings. Instead, we borrow cultures we are already familiar with and adapt them into our fictional worlds. It's just far more efficient to communicate to your players "They're like Vikings" than to spend a hour trying to explain a totally novel culture you've invented. D&D is a game to be played, not an alternate reality to be studied.
I would say nothing in D&D 5e is a completely original idea. Everything is borrowed, stolen, adapted, or inspired from existing culture(s). Strahd von Zarovich is blatantly Eastern-European inspired, the Vestani are Roma, Theros is thinly veiled ancient Greece, Elves are Oriental, Dwarves are Scottish, Orcs are Mongols/Apache.
That looks all kinds of offensive. I also think if anyone is going to invoke loaded language like "humans in funny hats" then they should actually define what that means.
I think all elves are Oriental─a loaded and outdated term that covers most of Asia─and I have no idea where you got that from. We're talking Southwest, South, Southeast, East, and Central Asia. Sometimes, it even includes the Caucuses (not everyone agreed). It's the antithesis of Occidental, or western. Think everything from Turkey to the Arabian Peninsula, to India, to Indonesia, to Japan and the Korean Peninsula, and everything in between. Essentially, it's everything that's not considered part of Oceana. We're talking four dozen countries and two dozen ethnic groups, and you just want to lump them all in together under a single banner? There's painting with a broad brush, and there's whatever the heck you just did.
Never mind that elves, however fictional, don't originate from any Asian folklore. They're of Scandinavian origin, so if anyone is "viking" (another loaded, misused term) it's them.
Or that dwarves are necessarily Scottish. I know people love to play them with the accent, but what shared culture do they have? Or was that just typing off the cuff, too?
You're dragging real life peoples into this, and it's not looking good.
... There's painting with a broad brush, and there's whatever the heck you just did. ... You're dragging real life peoples into this, and it's not looking good.
Man.
It's almost like treating entire species as nothing but utterly uniform monocultures with absolutely no variation, individuality, or personal identity and demanding that players adhere to those monocultures strictly and unilaterally because "Tradition!/It's more Authentic that way!", punishing any player who dares break from the mold with sharp disfavor both in and out of character, isn't great for the game and has ugly parallels with real-world attitudes that many places and peoples around the world are really struggling with.
I wonder why a company with a successful product with an international footprint, played and beloved by millions of people worldwide despite being mired in the baggage of fifty years of shitty tropes and racist cheap shots from the parts of United States history we're embarrassed to talk about these days might want to try and change things around and showcase the individual strength, diversity, and heroism of its peoples rather than painting an entire species as one singular thing from which no person could ever break.
I tried to tell people this wasn't the thread to resurrect the stupid Genetic Determinism "discussion". Errybuddy ignored me. So here we are - once again having to deal with people who claim that writing "Dwarf" on their character's sheet is the only thing they need to say to define their entire character from persona to capabilities to eqipment to history, and furthermore that writing "Dwarf" on their character sheet is the only thing they SHOULD say to define their character.
If y'all are so determined to paint entire peoples with a single unicolor brush and severely punish anyone who wants to show the slightest hint of personal individuality, go play AD&D where that shit was built into the game engine. It has no place in One D&D, and frankly is rapidly losing its place in base 5e. As it bloody well should.
I happen to think Treantmonk has outlasted his own usefulness to the game. He came to notoriety back when system mastery felt essential to play games like D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st edition. Not that I think his guides actually focused much on system mastery. It was broad, "here's what's most likely to be useful to you," stuff; regardless of what kind of game you're playing in.
The reality is, if the 2014 PH is a fall 2024 release, there's plenty more time for experimentation. Each class, save for monk, has had a pass. That's 11/48 subclasses down. We should have a playtest packet every two months, which means one probably in the next week. Then more in August, October, and December. That's enough time to give each class two more passes, and to cover another 24 subclasses. Everything could have a pass done by next April, with feedback done by the end of May. And, admittedly, that would be close with a publication date by the end of the year. Forget his supposed schedule. There have been printing issues across the board for every industry.
It's also possible that classes and subclasses reverting to the 2014 progression is a red herring. If they only need to test subclasses, they can do so by just releasing them for the 2014 book and string us along for the 2024 release. Or they won't even bother testing each one publicly, since they didn't for 2014.
It's a speculation video intended to drive traffic, as so many must do or they risk losing their place in the algorithm. That doesn't make it insightful.
Not to mention that, to a long-lived species, a low fertility rate might be highly beneficial to serve as a natural population control. If you live for several centuries, after all, that could result in one woman having a literal army squads worth of kids if her fertility rate was similar to humans. But with a lower rate comes the issue that, if the child dies, it might take years or even literal DECADES of non-stop trying for a baby to succeed even once. The result would likely be that the society would highly value every individual but also be extremely risk and change adverse simply because even a few lives lost would take forever to replace. They would also probably favor 'safer' forms of combat like ranged combat because not only would they have the time to practice endlessly but replacing any elf that dies can be a lengthy process.
At least that's one potential impact. But on the whole, and related to the original point, I feel like ditching macro-level cultural norms and the like just because that may not hold true on the individual level is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Not only do I feel like it goes a long way towards making each race flavored and distinct and unique and people (hopefully) want to play them; but the alternative is a steadily growing homoginization that benefits no one and only serves to make all characters more mundane on the whole.
That's not the reason to not have racial cultures. It's because macro-level cultural norms based on race are stupid; there's no reason for nonhuman races to have a unified culture, or even a culture that's distinct from the society they're a part of.
I hate to disagree but we know that's not true. There's countless upon countless examples IRL where ethnic groups have held distinct cultures different from whatever society dominates them. And that's just ethnic groups. They're still human. Imagine throwing actual, distinct, racial differences into the mix.
As for 'unified culture', it seems you're confusing, possibly intentionally, the macro with the individual. I.E. Since there's no reason a specific Englishman would say 'God save the King/Queen' and like tea that means if we had an English 'race' we couldn't list something like that as a defining feature. Otherwise you're going to need to be more clear and specific as to what you're saying.
Different groups have most certainly retained distinct cultures -- but those cultures were distinct before they were living in the same area and don't have anything to do with genetics. Designing cultures and figuring out how they've interacted in the past is a key part of worldbuilding, but it really has no reason to be tied to race.
The USA is debatable in it's claim to Empire. The main arguments for America as an Empire is it's overseas territories like Puerto Rico which I think you'd find it a stretch to claim that their culture is exactly the same as the mainland USA culture. The major source of debate are the 100s of overseas military bases and the resulting political and cultural influence on the host nations of those bases - is that coupled with NATO and the American Hegemony sufficiently similar to e.g. the UK while under Roman occupation to count as Empire or not.
There are also arguments with respect to the First Nations - or "Indians" and "Eskimos" as 'mericans call them - which I think again you would have a hard time arguing that a Cherokee individual born and raised on a reservation has the exact same culture as a white American, and then lastly the descendants of enslaved Black Americans - again I think you'd have a hard time arguing that they have the same cultural identity as white Americans.
Empires were POLITICALLY dominated by a particular ethnicity but that is all. The majority of people living inside the Roman Empire were not Romans, not even Italians (who aren't a homogeneous culture either). There were more Egyptians in the Roman Empire than Italians for most of its history. The Mongol Empire was a majority Chinese population. The Aztec Empire included the Culhuaque, Cuitlahuaque, Mixquica, Xochimilca, Chalca, Tepaneca, Acolhuaque, and Mexica. The Ottoman Empire contained more Africans and Europeans than it did Turks.
It’s not mandatory, but it’s a very common trope that different races originated in different geographic regions, and it’s easier to give setting neutral cultural trends based on race than anything else. It’s a useful tool for quick worldbuilding and roleplay diversification, and most other options for cultural models would be tied to nuances and details of a particular setting, which they’re trying to move away from.
Humankind isn't a monoculture on Earth, and neither are the other species. In the Forgotten Realms alone, there are seven Dethek (dwarvish) dialects. You can bet your bottom dollar they each have their own culture attached.
That doesn't mean their cultures are similar to elves, halflings, or other species. Some broad strokes can be reasonably assumed without diminishing their variety. Each of these species, and more, can do things humans cannot. There's no reason to assume their cultures are just like ours.
There is no such thing as setting neutral cultural trends.
Not entirely, but race examples are easier to adapt across various settings. And, to expand on a point not included in your quote, they need to start somewhere, if only to provide tools/examples to work with.
No, they really aren't. It's possible to create an interesting culture that actually interacts meaningfully with species traits, but (a) D&D has never done that well, and (b) most 'species' or 'races' in D&D are just humans in funny hats anyway, they simply aren't different enough from human to naturally produce significantly different cultures, at most you're looking at some economic effects that D&D is utterly uninterested in modeling.
Counterpoint: most species shouldn't be just humans in funny hats.
Laziness should not be an excuse to omit interesting writing.
Great, then delete dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, and orcs, and come up with new species that are actually original ideas.
I hope that's not intended to be read facetiously.
It could be read either way. Honestly, if you want to get rid of problematic racial stereotypes you should kill off all of those species, but trying to do that would make the current complaints look tiny.
Humans in funny hats are the easiest for people to empathize with, which is crucial for effective story telling. And let's be honest, 90% of players and DMs don't have the time or interest in portraying completely alien beings. Instead, we borrow cultures we are already familiar with and adapt them into our fictional worlds. It's just far more efficient to communicate to your players "They're like Vikings" than to spend a hour trying to explain a totally novel culture you've invented. D&D is a game to be played, not an alternate reality to be studied.
I would say nothing in D&D 5e is a completely original idea. Everything is borrowed, stolen, adapted, or inspired from existing culture(s). Strahd von Zarovich is blatantly Eastern-European inspired, the Vestani are Roma, Theros is thinly veiled ancient Greece, Elves are Oriental, Dwarves are Scottish, Orcs are Mongols/Apache.
That's fair. However, I still wish we had even more time to playtest and experiment for bigger changes, and you know that the developers will probably want to have people look at something that isn't too far away from the some the ideas they will see in the final release. Also if we do have six more packets, as you seem to think we will if they go on a schedule of a new release every two months through April, then we would have to have four classes per playtest. We would also have to have six-ish subclasses per playtest too, and that's a bit awkward given that some classes would probably feature multiple subclasses while some might not need to.
You're probably right that Treantmonk isn't too reliable, and I should've watched the video he was referring to before using the information. However, Jeremy Crawford does say "We are nearing the end of the first chapter of our playtest process... Which was 'let's see what the appetite for change is.' People are then going to see... many familiar things from the 2014 books but now with the new material incorporated." (Quote taken from this video, 2 minutes 35 seconds in.)
Now, I think you're right that that doesn't necessarily mean experimentation for new stuff to be added in for One D&D is all but over. However, it does imply that they are starting to work on combining things and making things fit in more instead of just focusing on big new innovations. It's possible I'm misinterpreting his comments or making too big conclusions from them. However, I'm not panicking and saying we won't get through enough material. My point is that potentially not having time to get cool new mechanics that change a lot in from this point on is something that is reasonable to be concerned about.
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 like they would work out deeply and better more complex rules like the shown at DMG. We have options for shield, flank, cure wounds, natural healing (not going to use that magical overpowered full heal everything long rest, thanks).
But I miss something more about the injuries and massive damage sections, they need more working out, in other words, options for deadly combat. That would be the solution for those who don't want to be everything based on plain maths. We need a real table (the injuries one is not appropriate), with a criticals table or tables (maybe another one for "big/special" creatures with lesser severity) with results based on some math taking into account the attacker and defender plus the d20 roll, with results from making lose the reaction to instant death.
That looks all kinds of offensive. I also think if anyone is going to invoke loaded language like "humans in funny hats" then they should actually define what that means.
I think all elves are Oriental─a loaded and outdated term that covers most of Asia─and I have no idea where you got that from. We're talking Southwest, South, Southeast, East, and Central Asia. Sometimes, it even includes the Caucuses (not everyone agreed). It's the antithesis of Occidental, or western. Think everything from Turkey to the Arabian Peninsula, to India, to Indonesia, to Japan and the Korean Peninsula, and everything in between. Essentially, it's everything that's not considered part of Oceana. We're talking four dozen countries and two dozen ethnic groups, and you just want to lump them all in together under a single banner? There's painting with a broad brush, and there's whatever the heck you just did.
Never mind that elves, however fictional, don't originate from any Asian folklore. They're of Scandinavian origin, so if anyone is "viking" (another loaded, misused term) it's them.
Or that dwarves are necessarily Scottish. I know people love to play them with the accent, but what shared culture do they have? Or was that just typing off the cuff, too?
You're dragging real life peoples into this, and it's not looking good.
Man.
It's almost like treating entire species as nothing but utterly uniform monocultures with absolutely no variation, individuality, or personal identity and demanding that players adhere to those monocultures strictly and unilaterally because "Tradition!/It's more Authentic that way!", punishing any player who dares break from the mold with sharp disfavor both in and out of character, isn't great for the game and has ugly parallels with real-world attitudes that many places and peoples around the world are really struggling with.
I wonder why a company with a successful product with an international footprint, played and beloved by millions of people worldwide despite being mired in the baggage of fifty years of shitty tropes and racist cheap shots from the parts of United States history we're embarrassed to talk about these days might want to try and change things around and showcase the individual strength, diversity, and heroism of its peoples rather than painting an entire species as one singular thing from which no person could ever break.
I tried to tell people this wasn't the thread to resurrect the stupid Genetic Determinism "discussion". Errybuddy ignored me. So here we are - once again having to deal with people who claim that writing "Dwarf" on their character's sheet is the only thing they need to say to define their entire character from persona to capabilities to eqipment to history, and furthermore that writing "Dwarf" on their character sheet is the only thing they SHOULD say to define their character.
If y'all are so determined to paint entire peoples with a single unicolor brush and severely punish anyone who wants to show the slightest hint of personal individuality, go play AD&D where that shit was built into the game engine. It has no place in One D&D, and frankly is rapidly losing its place in base 5e. As it bloody well should.
Please do not contact or message me.