I am a new lad into dnd, I have been messing around with the gm with the starter kits and what not for a couple of years, but now I actually finally got things going. Actually really diving in learning how to play, started dming a group. Bought the players hand book, Xanathars guide, dm guide and recently Monster of the multiverse. And with the multiverse book, I went ahead and bought it cause it is a combination of a couple of books, and plenty races. It's a really great book, but it left me hanging on multiple things. The biggest really being what are they doing with races now. I find it really odd how they are making it now you no longer get racial modifiers, and languages. Along with their wasnt a table for heights and weights. So an example of adding confusion could be explained with a Goliath. How are you supposed to know they are 8 feet and speak gaint if you had no background information with the character in it's explain. I have been dabbling so I need this stuff already, but I really feel like it doesn't make sense. So I don't see why dnd is going this direction. I feel they are taking away from the different races, and making everything bland, taking away from what makes races different, like a Goliath being simple naturally stronger than a sea elf
And to think, people keep saying "there's no reason to keep having this conversation".
Welcome to D&D 2024, Timone. M3 is designed as a setting-agnostic sourcebook, the first one introduced to D&D with that specific goal in mind. What "setting-agnostic" means is that the critters contained in M3, both playable and bestiary, are intended to be as neutral as is reasonable with a minimum of information that does not apply as globally as possible. The goliaths of the Elemental Evil Player's Companion are specifically the goliaths of Faerun. Their lore is for the Forgotten Realms, their ancillary information is for the Forgotten Realms, everything in the EEPC entry is assuming the goliath in question is in Faerun. Is the information on goliaths in EEPC accurate to goliaths in Eberron? Accurate to goliaths in Exandria? Kryn? A given DM's homebrew setting?
Often, the answer is 'no' and a DM has to fight the book to strip away the whole "socially inept mountain men who hate weakness and abandon the weak and infirm" thing from their species of Big Guys.
The information you want is not necessarily being eliminated or discarded. Ideally it is being shunted into setting-specific books. Both Explorer's Guide to Wildmount and Eberron" Rising from the Last War have sections detailing the basic lore and positions of each commonly available playable species within that setting, which is what many, many D&D players feel is the proper way to go about it. D&D in general is shifting away from the assumption that the Forgotten Realms is the default setting everybody is always playing in and towards the assumption that everybody plays in a different world whose lore might be wildly different than the Realms. Forcing every species to cleave to lore written specifically and solely for the Realms sucks real hard for people who dislike the Realms and never play there.
As for 'making everything bland', these things are only as bland as you let them be. if you want to run a setting where every goliath is naturally immensely strong and also unthinkably stupid, then create a rule for your table wherein goliath PCs cannot have a Strength lower than 13 or an Intelligence higher than 9. I won't get into the reasons why that sort of thing deeply bothers a great many players, but please rest assured that it does. People have been arguing back and forth on this issue - often viciously and with ever-rising hostility - for close to three years now. It won't be settled in this thread.
The takeaway is that you are empowered to do whatever you think makes for a good game for you. If you want to impose species ASIs, alignments, fixed height/weight/lifespan tables, and all the rest, you are enthusiastically free to do so. The only difference is that now the rest of us are too, without having to fight the books first and cut away all the extraneous crap we have never needed nor wanted.
I do see the point of now how that they are trying to relay now more on the freedom of choice within the newer, nor do I have a problem with it, but I feel that the old guide lines of bits of lore or things are extremely useful resources. Never have I personally felt as if I had to fight or work around what lore the dnd made. If something hasn't lined up in my world. I changed it. But the lore made for excellent guide lines and examples of what this species was imagined to be like. Using goliaths again being tribal like folks was what their lore may have made em to be, but there was no problem if one wanted to make that a civilized, gaint (no pun intended) nation. (Also I do feel I should I do not wish to argue anything, just simple discussion and see an understanding of why these things may be happening)
I do see the point of now how that they are trying to relay now more on the freedom of choice within the newer, nor do I have a problem with it, but I feel that the old guide lines of bits of lore or things are extremely useful resources. Never have I personally felt as if I had to fight or work around what lore the dnd made. If something hasn't lined up in my world. I changed it. But the lore made for excellent guide lines and examples of what this species was imagined to be like. Using goliaths again being tribal like folks was what their lore may have made em to be, but there was no problem if one wanted to make that a civilized, gaint (no pun intended) nation. (Also I do feel I should I do not wish to argue anything, just simple discussion and see an understanding of why these things may be happening)
Others have had this issue, enough so that WotC decided it was in their best interest to change that.
Indeed that is something, I do see. I do believe the Wotc see trying to advance the game with what the do believe is to be the best interest for their player base and to keep it steadily available for new comers. I suppose I myself and other who are now beganing to just really get into the game are in a unique position. Do to how things are beginning to update and what not. So their is this bit of grey area, for tho's like me have to decide on should I continue to purchase these older books, that would be beneficial as of now, or should I wait till all the updates come out and get the most current books. And sense alot of rule changes are being made, I am still learning the old. It seems balance to me, but I haven't really got to see all the weakness as of yet for I am still new. But from a newer view things seem fairly good and swell from what the current state is so with the updates to those things it seems to me as "interesting" choice to best describes it. I do hope the continue to make their own lore for such things to go along with the races and nations and such, even if they aren't within the Main books, but as source and extra books. I do believe that it would be great for those who do indeed enjoy all of those items and such things. As mentioned above, I do understand that indeed one doesn't want to force folks to play within the realm with their prewritten lore on such things. But with with the new exclusion of such things, would that be hurting those who do enjoy such things? For sure I do understand such things there is a larger picture, and these questions and concerns will not be decided within these forms. I just am curious to see others views and understanding of such items. I always like to gather as much information as possible inorder to form the best possible understanding of such events. And I do thank you all for your response and understanding.
You are in the same place a lot of people have been in the past. It isn't the first edition change after all. Every single time there has come a point where people have had to decide if buying the current book was worth the money if were going to be obsolete within a few months. It is just a little different this time around because books like MMM are supposed to be in line with the "next edition" of the game so should be safe to buy. Whether or not that is true is yet to be seen, but that is what WotC is trying to imply.
The question you should really ask yourself is "I am ok with the current edition as is or do I intend to play the game being released in 2024?"
If you don't intend to switch editions, then you don't need to worry about anything that WotC publishes going forward from this point. If you are uncertain, then look at what comes down the pipe and see what they do.
Traditionally, the transitition between editions is rocky and full of panic to say the least, but it normally calms down and people adjust to the new edition. 4e was really the main exception to that.
And the races still get their +2/+1 or three +1’s to their stats, they are just not tied to race and specific ability scores.
Yes, there will be rules changes with the new edition, but WotC claims that the new edition of 2024 will be backwards compatible so we don’t know how drastic those rules changes will be. The “core” of 5E mechanics probably won’t change much.
And yes, some players and DM’s have trouble stripping away lore etc from races and monsters in their homebrew worlds and are better reserved for Setting books. If you are doing a homebrew setting and a player is playing an orc, you don’t have to ask them “is it a faerun orc, an ebberon orc? and oh, by the way in my world your <insert setting> orc doesn’t have X trait because they have Y trait instead”.
It will be up to you to decide how much you want to spend on books that may be changing in a few years.
In General I agree with you Timone. I too feel that things they used to do with races (and monsters) helped give them a certain sense of character, and a baseline or jumping off point, but I never felt shackled by it, or compelled to adhere to whatever was written. As an example, I see nothing wrong with a peaceful fishing village full of Orcs regardless of whatever the books said about them. If I didn’t want things a certain way in my games, then I just changed it and had no problems moving forward. It sounds like you play in much the same way as I do in that regard. 🎼”’Cause we’re free, to do what we want, any ol’ time.”🎶 However, others are apparently a lot less openminded than you and I are.
For some folks, if they see something in print they feel like it has to be that way, as if ink on a page binds them in some way to adhere to those words. 🤷♂️ So they need WotC to be openminded for them because apparently they can’t be for themselves. Things you or I would just change without worry, other folks feel compelled to adhere to even if they disagree with those things. For me, if I didn’t like whatever the book said I just crossed it out, often literally crossing out and changing pieces, or even whole sections within a sourcebook. I started doing that way back in 2e. (I would still do it now except I went purely digital this edition and have no physical books to markup. I still change those things I disagree with, I just have to keep separate notes now is all.) Not everyone is that free-thinking. So now WotC is doing the free-thinking for them with the new books. That’s not a judgement on my part, I’m not saying it’s bad, simply what is.
I guess you could say it comes down to a matter of alignment. If you or I feel something is too constrictive, or we just don’t like it, we change those things to suit ourselves. I suppose that makes us a little Chaotic. Other folks are a lot more Lawful, and feel compelled to “do whatever the book says” (and and then just complain about it). So, to make those folks happy, and to increase sales revenue, WotC is now making things this new way to give those Lawful folks permission to be different, permission to change things because “the book says you can now,” or permission to be creative because the book just doesn’t say anything at all about it anymore. With less restrictive “laws” in the books, and just fewer “laws” in general, WotC is redesigning things to cater to those folks who are a little too lawful to make the kinds of changes you or I would just naturally make for ourselves. It gives those folks official permission to play the game the same way you and I already do, which is to say however we want. It gives them legal permission to be less lawful if that makes sense.
Again, I’m not commenting on which way is more or less right, just on what is. Some folks simply need the books to be more generic and explicitly permissive. So that’s what WotC is giving to them. The fact that they are removing those jumping off points I mentioned earlier that you and I felt were handy to have is just an unfortunate result of that process. I’m sure that they will add those jumping off points in other lore-focused setting books in future. What that means for folks like you and me moving forward is either:
We’ll need two books from now on, books like M3 that have the mechanical content, and a separate setting specific book to give that content context (so WotC can make even more money). Or:
Players like you and I will continue to do things however we want, we just won’t have and points of reference for them.
Since I don’t purchase setting books for anything other than the mechanical content, and since they are going to be separating that content from the lore from now on, that means I can completely skip purchasing any setting books moving forward and only buy the content publications I want, if any, moving forward. So WotC will likely end up making less money off of me in future, but probably more money overall. So I guess you could say it’s a win-win for both of us because we’ll both have more money. 😂😂
Indeed, I thank you for your thought. It is true that I have never felt bound by what in the books (For example the draconain dreadnought erupted into fire when it dies, but the dragon that Made the is a white dragon, who's basically a god, so in the middle of describing the death, I was like you know any ice explosion would be better than fire and more fitting to the world). as well I do understand that for other folks it isn't harmful to include just the basic summary of the race, to allow them to develop deeply into what they feel best fit. I myself in my creations constantly am bouncing ideas of other recommendations and ideas. Similar to what I am doing now. Which is why I love the large detailed bits of lore such as in volo's guide (which is the dnd book that got me hooked to the game, should buy it before it's gone lol) for it allows me to bouncy ideas off a established scene inorder to develop my own plans with out having to pester other folks, and friends who may be playing in my sessions. And I thank you for your thought for it nice to see both sides, and their not just be an argument.
And for the other 2 thoughts above, I appreciate your feed for indeed. These are minor changes as of now, and there is no harm done in with them as well I do appreciate how it is backwards compatible, so I am not having to complete relearn the entire game if I wish to follow the new rules. And indeed transition between edition can be Rocky, especially I do believe as of now, for we got a more so incomplete part, but I feel that It is only a part and there is nothing to fear, for more shall continue and and developments shall unfilled and we be like ah that makes sense now
And to think, people keep saying "there's no reason to keep having this conversation".
I don't think people are saying that. What I and others have tried to say is that one portion of this has already been heavily debated, and I think everyone has made all the points they're going to make. Why continue that part of the argument if you're not going to bring anything new to the table? I am fine with people talking about this book being setting diagnostic and disliking that, but one of OP's questions was why Wizards got rid of racial tied ASI's, and I linked a thread that helped show an explanation. No, I do not want the same argument to be mentioned and the same points to be fought over, again and again. What I was trying to say, is their is a simple explanation to that question, and their is no good reason for people to start a debate about it without knowing their's already been one.
Feel free to not like M3, but that was one specific portion of the argument that I asked not to rekindle, and (thankfully) you did not make any points about that section. Racial tied ASI's have been debated and fought over and over, again and agin. Unless someone has something new to bring to that argument, why argue about it again? I was simply saying, this is why it was removed, and we do not need to debate those reasons all over again.
As for 2024, I just wish that WotC would go all the way and stop pretending that they still want races to exist, when they obviously want skins. At char creation, just give the toon non-tied ASIs and let the player choose from a few menus of former racial special abilities, and let the looks etc be all up to the player.
I personally will still play in worlds where early 5e style races and racial abilities exist, but in the official rules they should get rid of races, for everyones peace of mind.
As for 2024, I just wish that WotC would go all the way and stop pretending that they still want races to exist, when they obviously want skins. At char creation, just give the toon non-tied ASIs and let the player choose from a few menus of former racial special abilities, and let the looks etc be all up to the player.
I personally will still play in worlds where early 5e style races and racial abilities exist, but in the official rules they should get rid of races, for everyones peace of mind.
That would make character generation, at least for newbies, too complicated. When I introduce new people to 5e, I don't even tell them about point-buy - it just complicates things and brings analysis paralysis. The current system is plenty complicated for them to be getting on with as it is. 5e seemed aimed at making things accessible for new players, and it's the most popular version yet, most likely for that reason. I just don't see WotC going for such an anti-newbie direction at the moment.
I could see it being a parallel system - kind of like point-buy that has standard array available too. The races are still there for easy selection, but then there's an official mechanic for creating your own races. We kind of have one at the moment, but a more involved process that allows you more options, maybe a point-buy system. Darkvision is so many points, a skill proficiency is a different amount of points, etc. Tha would take a few pages to do, which might be an obstacle (as opposed to the Ability Score systems that take only a page or so at most).
I don't see them scrapping preset races, unless they abandon the idea of races altogether and you just pick a class. Character generation is already a hurdle to overcome, you don't want it even more complicated if not necessary.
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.
Query, for those fighting their hardest against the whole idea.
Why not just use pregens?
The more I see this argument come up, the more I see people snap and snarl and kvetch and moan about how there's just no flavor or character in the new blocks, the more I honestly find myself wondering why those people don't just hand their players a list of pregenerated characters and say "you get to play one of these. Make your picks, no doubling up, let me know who's who in fifteen minutes after I snarf some pizza"? Clearly the DMs at these tables do not/cannot trust their players to make compelling characters on their own, since they spend so much time coercing, cajoling, browbeating, and billyclubbing their players into staying inside the lines and avoiding even the faintest hint of Nontraditional Story.
So why bother? Just...write a bunch of pregens and run games for those. Write the Fellowship of Ringbearers you're willing to run a game for and skip the whole process of punching your players repeatedly in the mouth until they either quit or agree to make the characters you were going to force them to run in the first place anyway. Rather than hedging around character creation with three hundred side rules designed to eliminate any possibility of someone bringing a novel idea to the table and blowing two weeks explaining those rules and fighting over them, just write pregens and tell your players "I'm running a game for four of these characters or I'm not running a game. Your call."
Easier, faster, far simpler, and you get what you wanted in the first place. Why not do it that way?
Query, for those fighting their hardest against the whole idea.
Why not just use pregens?
The more I see this argument come up, the more I see people snap and snarl and kvetch and moan about how there's just no flavor or character in the new blocks, the more I honestly find myself wondering why those people don't just hand their players a list of pregenerated characters and say "you get to play one of these. Make your picks, no doubling up, let me know who's who in fifteen minutes after I snarf some pizza"? Clearly the DMs at these tables do not/cannot trust their players to make compelling characters on their own, since they spend so much time coercing, cajoling, browbeating, and billyclubbing their players into staying inside the lines and avoiding even the faintest hint of Nontraditional Story.
So why bother? Just...write a bunch of pregens and run games for those. Write the Fellowship of Ringbearers you're willing to run a game for and skip the whole process of punching your players repeatedly in the mouth until they either quit or agree to make the characters you were going to force them to run in the first place anyway. Rather than hedging around character creation with three hundred side rules designed to eliminate any possibility of someone bringing a novel idea to the table and blowing two weeks explaining those rules and fighting over them, just write pregens and tell your players "I'm running a game for four of these characters or I'm not running a game. Your call."
Easier, faster, far simpler, and you get what you wanted in the first place. Why not do it that way?
The more I see this argument come up, the more I see people snap and snarl and kvetch and moan about how there's just no flavor or character in the new blocks, the more I honestly find myself wondering why those people don't just hand their players a list of pregenerated characters and say "you get to play one of these.
To be frank, I do not believe that has anything to do with how folks feel that the new character blocks are bland. Nor do I believe that an argument of that nature is beneficial to any discussion, for all that is being done is to stir up harsh and argumentive opinions, there is nolonger any form for of civilized discussion once these arguments began. So I ask you to if you have a civilized opinion to make with out trying to enrage the other side, please do so. But If not I will ask you to not to do so.
Do I consider it ideal? Of course not. Someone who wants to run that game would have to work harder to sell it to me than someone who opens up character creation. But to answer the question in a manner no one expected me to: I would not turn it down out of hand. It depends on what else is wrapped up in the experience on offer, and on whether the pregens in question are worth playing or not. Would also depend on who is at said table and why they want to run pregens. There would be conversations. But no, I would not necessarily peace out without a word.
Just like some DMs need to learn to unclench and not instantly start seeing red the moment a player strays off Tolkien's beaten-to-death path, some players could stand to learn some new tricks and try stepping outside their comfort zone and taking a few steps towards someone else's. As long as everybody signs on and is on the same page, let her rip and see what happens.
Just like some DMs need to learn to unclench and not instantly start seeing red the moment a player strays off Tolkien's beaten-to-death path, some players could stand to learn some new tricks and try stepping outside their comfort zone and taking a few steps towards someone else's. As long as everybody signs on and is on the same page, let her rip and see what happens.
I’m so pleased to see you write that. Then I take it you have reversed your previous denouncement of generating characters by rolling stats first in order and then building your character from there. This is excellent timing because the campaign I have been running for the past couple years is coming to its denouement and I was thinking of inviting a few select folks into a PbP run that way. I’ll count you in then.
Query, for those fighting their hardest against the whole idea.
Why not just use pregens?
The more I see this argument come up, the more I see people snap and snarl and kvetch and moan about how there's just no flavor or character in the new blocks, the more I honestly find myself wondering why those people don't just hand their players a list of pregenerated characters and say "you get to play one of these. Make your picks, no doubling up, let me know who's who in fifteen minutes after I snarf some pizza"? Clearly the DMs at these tables do not/cannot trust their players to make compelling characters on their own, since they spend so much time coercing, cajoling, browbeating, and billyclubbing their players into staying inside the lines and avoiding even the faintest hint of Nontraditional Story.
So why bother? Just...write a bunch of pregens and run games for those. Write the Fellowship of Ringbearers you're willing to run a game for and skip the whole process of punching your players repeatedly in the mouth until they either quit or agree to make the characters you were going to force them to run in the first place anyway. Rather than hedging around character creation with three hundred side rules designed to eliminate any possibility of someone bringing a novel idea to the table and blowing two weeks explaining those rules and fighting over them, just write pregens and tell your players "I'm running a game for four of these characters or I'm not running a game. Your call."
Easier, faster, far simpler, and you get what you wanted in the first place. Why not do it that way?
Just because I don't want my hot chocolate at 100⁰C, that doesn't mean that I must want it at 0⁰C. Until that principle is understood and accepted, there's not a lot to say.
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.
Sposta: I actually reread the old thread where you took me to task over that issue recently. My stance has never been "never do the thing", it's been "understand WHY you are making any given decision in your game, including decision of chargen method. Understand the benefits it gives you, and the drawbacks you're taking on to get those benefits, and make an informed and deliberate decision towards the goal of building the kind of game you want to play/run rather than thoughtlessly knee-jerking one way or another because Tradition."
It's why I'm not trying to be nasty when I suggest that DMs who just cannot *stand* anything Tasha, who hate every species introduced since the PHB and half the ones in there, who couldn't contain their groans when the artificer went "core"? The highly, fiercely Traditional sorts who just can't get excited for all this newfangled junk and see nothing wrong with human-centric games of chucking jewelry in volcanos? Write pregens. Make it crystal clear that you expect THIS tone in your game, and ensure your game balancing is spot on to boot.
You're gaining the benefit of being able to very tightly curate the story you wish to run and account for every variable in pre-campaign prep. You're taking on the drawbacks of reduced player agency and investment, especially early on. I'm not willing to make that trade, but someone else very well might. It's a choice for those looking for a specific kind of experience. Just because it's Not Traditional doesn't mean you can't do it, if it truly suits the game you want to run.
Edit: this website is ******* awful on mobile and I hate it. Anyways. Linklite: again, see above. It's not a choice between boiling chocolate or a block of chocolate ice. If one is going to pitch a fit every time their players nudge a toe out of line, then find players who don't mind you doing their coloring for them. Hand them a list of a dozen or two pregens and then run a game. If they buy in, who cares? It's unconventional, sure, but is it really worse than three weeks of arguing back and forth shooting down a dozen different player ideas before they get exasperated and turn in a Traditional character just to be done with the whole process?
I am a new lad into dnd, I have been messing around with the gm with the starter kits and what not for a couple of years, but now I actually finally got things going. Actually really diving in learning how to play, started dming a group. Bought the players hand book, Xanathars guide, dm guide and recently Monster of the multiverse. And with the multiverse book, I went ahead and bought it cause it is a combination of a couple of books, and plenty races. It's a really great book, but it left me hanging on multiple things. The biggest really being what are they doing with races now. I find it really odd how they are making it now you no longer get racial modifiers, and languages. Along with their wasnt a table for heights and weights. So an example of adding confusion could be explained with a Goliath. How are you supposed to know they are 8 feet and speak gaint if you had no background information with the character in it's explain. I have been dabbling so I need this stuff already, but I really feel like it doesn't make sense. So I don't see why dnd is going this direction. I feel they are taking away from the different races, and making everything bland, taking away from what makes races different, like a Goliath being simple naturally stronger than a sea elf
This part of your question is explained and debated on this thread (pages 3-7).
I hope this argument does not get reignited this argument on this thread.
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.And to think, people keep saying "there's no reason to keep having this conversation".
Welcome to D&D 2024, Timone. M3 is designed as a setting-agnostic sourcebook, the first one introduced to D&D with that specific goal in mind. What "setting-agnostic" means is that the critters contained in M3, both playable and bestiary, are intended to be as neutral as is reasonable with a minimum of information that does not apply as globally as possible. The goliaths of the Elemental Evil Player's Companion are specifically the goliaths of Faerun. Their lore is for the Forgotten Realms, their ancillary information is for the Forgotten Realms, everything in the EEPC entry is assuming the goliath in question is in Faerun. Is the information on goliaths in EEPC accurate to goliaths in Eberron? Accurate to goliaths in Exandria? Kryn? A given DM's homebrew setting?
Often, the answer is 'no' and a DM has to fight the book to strip away the whole "socially inept mountain men who hate weakness and abandon the weak and infirm" thing from their species of Big Guys.
The information you want is not necessarily being eliminated or discarded. Ideally it is being shunted into setting-specific books. Both Explorer's Guide to Wildmount and Eberron" Rising from the Last War have sections detailing the basic lore and positions of each commonly available playable species within that setting, which is what many, many D&D players feel is the proper way to go about it. D&D in general is shifting away from the assumption that the Forgotten Realms is the default setting everybody is always playing in and towards the assumption that everybody plays in a different world whose lore might be wildly different than the Realms. Forcing every species to cleave to lore written specifically and solely for the Realms sucks real hard for people who dislike the Realms and never play there.
As for 'making everything bland', these things are only as bland as you let them be. if you want to run a setting where every goliath is naturally immensely strong and also unthinkably stupid, then create a rule for your table wherein goliath PCs cannot have a Strength lower than 13 or an Intelligence higher than 9. I won't get into the reasons why that sort of thing deeply bothers a great many players, but please rest assured that it does. People have been arguing back and forth on this issue - often viciously and with ever-rising hostility - for close to three years now. It won't be settled in this thread.
The takeaway is that you are empowered to do whatever you think makes for a good game for you. If you want to impose species ASIs, alignments, fixed height/weight/lifespan tables, and all the rest, you are enthusiastically free to do so. The only difference is that now the rest of us are too, without having to fight the books first and cut away all the extraneous crap we have never needed nor wanted.
Please do not contact or message me.
I do see the point of now how that they are trying to relay now more on the freedom of choice within the newer, nor do I have a problem with it, but I feel that the old guide lines of bits of lore or things are extremely useful resources. Never have I personally felt as if I had to fight or work around what lore the dnd made. If something hasn't lined up in my world. I changed it. But the lore made for excellent guide lines and examples of what this species was imagined to be like. Using goliaths again being tribal like folks was what their lore may have made em to be, but there was no problem if one wanted to make that a civilized, gaint (no pun intended) nation. (Also I do feel I should I do not wish to argue anything, just simple discussion and see an understanding of why these things may be happening)
Others have had this issue, enough so that WotC decided it was in their best interest to change that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Indeed that is something, I do see. I do believe the Wotc see trying to advance the game with what the do believe is to be the best interest for their player base and to keep it steadily available for new comers. I suppose I myself and other who are now beganing to just really get into the game are in a unique position. Do to how things are beginning to update and what not. So their is this bit of grey area, for tho's like me have to decide on should I continue to purchase these older books, that would be beneficial as of now, or should I wait till all the updates come out and get the most current books. And sense alot of rule changes are being made, I am still learning the old. It seems balance to me, but I haven't really got to see all the weakness as of yet for I am still new. But from a newer view things seem fairly good and swell from what the current state is so with the updates to those things it seems to me as "interesting" choice to best describes it. I do hope the continue to make their own lore for such things to go along with the races and nations and such, even if they aren't within the Main books, but as source and extra books. I do believe that it would be great for those who do indeed enjoy all of those items and such things. As mentioned above, I do understand that indeed one doesn't want to force folks to play within the realm with their prewritten lore on such things. But with with the new exclusion of such things, would that be hurting those who do enjoy such things? For sure I do understand such things there is a larger picture, and these questions and concerns will not be decided within these forms. I just am curious to see others views and understanding of such items. I always like to gather as much information as possible inorder to form the best possible understanding of such events. And I do thank you all for your response and understanding.
You are in the same place a lot of people have been in the past. It isn't the first edition change after all. Every single time there has come a point where people have had to decide if buying the current book was worth the money if were going to be obsolete within a few months. It is just a little different this time around because books like MMM are supposed to be in line with the "next edition" of the game so should be safe to buy. Whether or not that is true is yet to be seen, but that is what WotC is trying to imply.
The question you should really ask yourself is "I am ok with the current edition as is or do I intend to play the game being released in 2024?"
If you don't intend to switch editions, then you don't need to worry about anything that WotC publishes going forward from this point. If you are uncertain, then look at what comes down the pipe and see what they do.
Traditionally, the transitition between editions is rocky and full of panic to say the least, but it normally calms down and people adjust to the new edition. 4e was really the main exception to that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
And the races still get their +2/+1 or three +1’s to their stats, they are just not tied to race and specific ability scores.
Yes, there will be rules changes with the new edition, but WotC claims that the new edition of 2024 will be backwards compatible so we don’t know how drastic those rules changes will be. The “core” of 5E mechanics probably won’t change much.
And yes, some players and DM’s have trouble stripping away lore etc from races and monsters in their homebrew worlds and are better reserved for Setting books. If you are doing a homebrew setting and a player is playing an orc, you don’t have to ask them “is it a faerun orc, an ebberon orc? and oh, by the way in my world your <insert setting> orc doesn’t have X trait because they have Y trait instead”.
It will be up to you to decide how much you want to spend on books that may be changing in a few years.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
In General I agree with you Timone. I too feel that things they used to do with races (and monsters) helped give them a certain sense of character, and a baseline or jumping off point, but I never felt shackled by it, or compelled to adhere to whatever was written. As an example, I see nothing wrong with a peaceful fishing village full of Orcs regardless of whatever the books said about them. If I didn’t want things a certain way in my games, then I just changed it and had no problems moving forward. It sounds like you play in much the same way as I do in that regard. 🎼”’Cause we’re free, to do what we want, any ol’ time.”🎶 However, others are apparently a lot less openminded than you and I are.
For some folks, if they see something in print they feel like it has to be that way, as if ink on a page binds them in some way to adhere to those words. 🤷♂️ So they need WotC to be openminded for them because apparently they can’t be for themselves. Things you or I would just change without worry, other folks feel compelled to adhere to even if they disagree with those things. For me, if I didn’t like whatever the book said I just crossed it out, often literally crossing out and changing pieces, or even whole sections within a sourcebook. I started doing that way back in 2e. (I would still do it now except I went purely digital this edition and have no physical books to markup. I still change those things I disagree with, I just have to keep separate notes now is all.) Not everyone is that free-thinking. So now WotC is doing the free-thinking for them with the new books. That’s not a judgement on my part, I’m not saying it’s bad, simply what is.
I guess you could say it comes down to a matter of alignment. If you or I feel something is too constrictive, or we just don’t like it, we change those things to suit ourselves. I suppose that makes us a little Chaotic. Other folks are a lot more Lawful, and feel compelled to “do whatever the book says” (and and then just complain about it). So, to make those folks happy, and to increase sales revenue, WotC is now making things this new way to give those Lawful folks permission to be different, permission to change things because “the book says you can now,” or permission to be creative because the book just doesn’t say anything at all about it anymore. With less restrictive “laws” in the books, and just fewer “laws” in general, WotC is redesigning things to cater to those folks who are a little too lawful to make the kinds of changes you or I would just naturally make for ourselves. It gives those folks official permission to play the game the same way you and I already do, which is to say however we want. It gives them legal permission to be less lawful if that makes sense.
Again, I’m not commenting on which way is more or less right, just on what is. Some folks simply need the books to be more generic and explicitly permissive. So that’s what WotC is giving to them. The fact that they are removing those jumping off points I mentioned earlier that you and I felt were handy to have is just an unfortunate result of that process. I’m sure that they will add those jumping off points in other lore-focused setting books in future. What that means for folks like you and me moving forward is either:
Or:
Since I don’t purchase setting books for anything other than the mechanical content, and since they are going to be separating that content from the lore from now on, that means I can completely skip purchasing any setting books moving forward and only buy the content publications I want, if any, moving forward. So WotC will likely end up making less money off of me in future, but probably more money overall. So I guess you could say it’s a win-win for both of us because we’ll both have more money. 😂😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Indeed, I thank you for your thought. It is true that I have never felt bound by what in the books (For example the draconain dreadnought erupted into fire when it dies, but the dragon that Made the is a white dragon, who's basically a god, so in the middle of describing the death, I was like you know any ice explosion would be better than fire and more fitting to the world). as well I do understand that for other folks it isn't harmful to include just the basic summary of the race, to allow them to develop deeply into what they feel best fit. I myself in my creations constantly am bouncing ideas of other recommendations and ideas. Similar to what I am doing now. Which is why I love the large detailed bits of lore such as in volo's guide (which is the dnd book that got me hooked to the game, should buy it before it's gone lol) for it allows me to bouncy ideas off a established scene inorder to develop my own plans with out having to pester other folks, and friends who may be playing in my sessions. And I thank you for your thought for it nice to see both sides, and their not just be an argument.
And for the other 2 thoughts above, I appreciate your feed for indeed. These are minor changes as of now, and there is no harm done in with them as well I do appreciate how it is backwards compatible, so I am not having to complete relearn the entire game if I wish to follow the new rules. And indeed transition between edition can be Rocky, especially I do believe as of now, for we got a more so incomplete part, but I feel that It is only a part and there is nothing to fear, for more shall continue and and developments shall unfilled and we be like ah that makes sense now
I don't think people are saying that. What I and others have tried to say is that one portion of this has already been heavily debated, and I think everyone has made all the points they're going to make. Why continue that part of the argument if you're not going to bring anything new to the table? I am fine with people talking about this book being setting diagnostic and disliking that, but one of OP's questions was why Wizards got rid of racial tied ASI's, and I linked a thread that helped show an explanation. No, I do not want the same argument to be mentioned and the same points to be fought over, again and again. What I was trying to say, is their is a simple explanation to that question, and their is no good reason for people to start a debate about it without knowing their's already been one.
Feel free to not like M3, but that was one specific portion of the argument that I asked not to rekindle, and (thankfully) you did not make any points about that section. Racial tied ASI's have been debated and fought over and over, again and agin. Unless someone has something new to bring to that argument, why argue about it again? I was simply saying, this is why it was removed, and we do not need to debate those reasons all over again.
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.As for 2024, I just wish that WotC would go all the way and stop pretending that they still want races to exist, when they obviously want skins. At char creation, just give the toon non-tied ASIs and let the player choose from a few menus of former racial special abilities, and let the looks etc be all up to the player.
I personally will still play in worlds where early 5e style races and racial abilities exist, but in the official rules they should get rid of races, for everyones peace of mind.
That would make character generation, at least for newbies, too complicated. When I introduce new people to 5e, I don't even tell them about point-buy - it just complicates things and brings analysis paralysis. The current system is plenty complicated for them to be getting on with as it is. 5e seemed aimed at making things accessible for new players, and it's the most popular version yet, most likely for that reason. I just don't see WotC going for such an anti-newbie direction at the moment.
I could see it being a parallel system - kind of like point-buy that has standard array available too. The races are still there for easy selection, but then there's an official mechanic for creating your own races. We kind of have one at the moment, but a more involved process that allows you more options, maybe a point-buy system. Darkvision is so many points, a skill proficiency is a different amount of points, etc. Tha would take a few pages to do, which might be an obstacle (as opposed to the Ability Score systems that take only a page or so at most).
I don't see them scrapping preset races, unless they abandon the idea of races altogether and you just pick a class. Character generation is already a hurdle to overcome, you don't want it even more complicated if not necessary.
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.
Query, for those fighting their hardest against the whole idea.
Why not just use pregens?
The more I see this argument come up, the more I see people snap and snarl and kvetch and moan about how there's just no flavor or character in the new blocks, the more I honestly find myself wondering why those people don't just hand their players a list of pregenerated characters and say "you get to play one of these. Make your picks, no doubling up, let me know who's who in fifteen minutes after I snarf some pizza"? Clearly the DMs at these tables do not/cannot trust their players to make compelling characters on their own, since they spend so much time coercing, cajoling, browbeating, and billyclubbing their players into staying inside the lines and avoiding even the faintest hint of Nontraditional Story.
So why bother? Just...write a bunch of pregens and run games for those. Write the Fellowship of Ringbearers you're willing to run a game for and skip the whole process of punching your players repeatedly in the mouth until they either quit or agree to make the characters you were going to force them to run in the first place anyway. Rather than hedging around character creation with three hundred side rules designed to eliminate any possibility of someone bringing a novel idea to the table and blowing two weeks explaining those rules and fighting over them, just write pregens and tell your players "I'm running a game for four of these characters or I'm not running a game. Your call."
Easier, faster, far simpler, and you get what you wanted in the first place. Why not do it that way?
Please do not contact or message me.
Would you want to play that way?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To be frank, I do not believe that has anything to do with how folks feel that the new character blocks are bland. Nor do I believe that an argument of that nature is beneficial to any discussion, for all that is being done is to stir up harsh and argumentive opinions, there is nolonger any form for of civilized discussion once these arguments began. So I ask you to if you have a civilized opinion to make with out trying to enrage the other side, please do so. But If not I will ask you to not to do so.
Depends, Sposta.
Do I consider it ideal? Of course not. Someone who wants to run that game would have to work harder to sell it to me than someone who opens up character creation. But to answer the question in a manner no one expected me to: I would not turn it down out of hand. It depends on what else is wrapped up in the experience on offer, and on whether the pregens in question are worth playing or not. Would also depend on who is at said table and why they want to run pregens. There would be conversations. But no, I would not necessarily peace out without a word.
Just like some DMs need to learn to unclench and not instantly start seeing red the moment a player strays off Tolkien's beaten-to-death path, some players could stand to learn some new tricks and try stepping outside their comfort zone and taking a few steps towards someone else's. As long as everybody signs on and is on the same page, let her rip and see what happens.
Please do not contact or message me.
I’m so pleased to see you write that. Then I take it you have reversed your previous denouncement of generating characters by rolling stats first in order and then building your character from there. This is excellent timing because the campaign I have been running for the past couple years is coming to its denouement and I was thinking of inviting a few select folks into a PbP run that way. I’ll count you in then.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just because I don't want my hot chocolate at 100⁰C, that doesn't mean that I must want it at 0⁰C. Until that principle is understood and accepted, there's not a lot to say.
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.
Sposta: I actually reread the old thread where you took me to task over that issue recently. My stance has never been "never do the thing", it's been "understand WHY you are making any given decision in your game, including decision of chargen method. Understand the benefits it gives you, and the drawbacks you're taking on to get those benefits, and make an informed and deliberate decision towards the goal of building the kind of game you want to play/run rather than thoughtlessly knee-jerking one way or another because Tradition."
It's why I'm not trying to be nasty when I suggest that DMs who just cannot *stand* anything Tasha, who hate every species introduced since the PHB and half the ones in there, who couldn't contain their groans when the artificer went "core"? The highly, fiercely Traditional sorts who just can't get excited for all this newfangled junk and see nothing wrong with human-centric games of chucking jewelry in volcanos? Write pregens. Make it crystal clear that you expect THIS tone in your game, and ensure your game balancing is spot on to boot.
You're gaining the benefit of being able to very tightly curate the story you wish to run and account for every variable in pre-campaign prep. You're taking on the drawbacks of reduced player agency and investment, especially early on. I'm not willing to make that trade, but someone else very well might. It's a choice for those looking for a specific kind of experience. Just because it's Not Traditional doesn't mean you can't do it, if it truly suits the game you want to run.
Edit: this website is ******* awful on mobile and I hate it. Anyways. Linklite: again, see above. It's not a choice between boiling chocolate or a block of chocolate ice. If one is going to pitch a fit every time their players nudge a toe out of line, then find players who don't mind you doing their coloring for them. Hand them a list of a dozen or two pregens and then run a game. If they buy in, who cares? It's unconventional, sure, but is it really worse than three weeks of arguing back and forth shooting down a dozen different player ideas before they get exasperated and turn in a Traditional character just to be done with the whole process?
Please do not contact or message me.