Just wondering though, what don't you like about 5th? Like I don't want to start an argument or debate over which editions is the "best" or whatever, I just want to know what people don't like about 5th edition.
Mostly because the game world went from "realistic assuming magic and monsters existed in the real world, kind of" to "Jar-Jar Binks levels of goofy".
Oh, and also because WTF its time to fix the game mechanics already, the competition is stiffer now than it was 20 years ago.
To illustrate my first point, here is a typical 5th edition goofy critter (by artist brynn metheney):
To illustrate my second point, here is some typical critter from some competition (official artwork);
The first critter is an owlbear. They have existed since first edition as far as I know. They were the fruit of a mad wizard who made experiences mixing different species. It was all detailed on the 2nd edition monster manual actually.
I think you're the only One in this forum Who thinks 5th edition sucks. And AD&D has been put to rest since 2001 with Thrones of Bhaal Bring on the playable dragonborns!
Dragonborn only in a Dragonlance game. If it is Forgotten Realms, they can stay the abyss out.
Get off your high horse. Dragonborn are no less feasible than tieflings or aasimar, irregardless of setting. You wanna complain about Dragonborn? Then complain about elves, gnomes, dwarves, halflings, half-elves, drow, and all the other fantasy races. Get your elitism out of my D&D!
So, one, my opinion, is just as valid as yours, so please watch your tone when disagreeing.
And there is no hate for Dragonborn here, they just don't fit the Forgotten Realms setting. They were shoehorned in for the 4th edition (basically the wiki saying, "we don't know how they got here, but here you go!" under the History section) and we all know how well 4th Edition Forgotten Realms with the Spell Plague was received.
Tieflings and assimar were part of 3rd edition and fit because the planes that their respective bloodlines come from were always in the setting. Every other race that you mentioned also has been in the forgotten realms Toril setting since the beginning.
With that, they are also only an uncommon race according to Player's Handbook, so they do not need to be included in official D&D games. And if you desperately want it, I guess it can be added as a DLC like it was in Neverwinter Online (for the insane price of $75).
And there is no hate for Dragonborn here, they just don't fit the Forgotten Realms setting.
Except, you know, when they totally do...
But, hey, I guess you think you're the designer of lore for 5th Edition. Guess, it's ok, @deltago decided we can discard everything from the Spellplague, because...whelp, dragonborn don't belong in the Forgotten Realms.
I can't stand them for two reasons: 1. They are superfluous. D&D/ FR already has kobolds, Yuan-Ti, lizardfolk and half-dragons (and probably then some). 2. Their visual design bothers me. I shall not mention why or how. Let's just say I've spend too much time online to ever be able to take any bara scalies seriously.
Dragonborn are on the same level of bad design decisions as 4th edition tieflings.
Eh, I hope they add uncommon races since Gnomes are considered uncommon in 5e and my CRPG protagonists are mostly gnomes as of late <_< >_>
Actually, I think it makes sense to have gnomes an uncommon race, lore-wise. Not because they are actually uncommon, but because they are "shy". The more I read about them, the more it becomes clear to me that gnomes are based on Heinzelmännchen and similar house-elves and kobolds from folklore. (I should mention that elves, gnomes, dwarves and kobolds are actually all the same thing, folklore wise.) D&D elves and dwarves are based on their Lord of the Rings counterparts, while gnomes take all the other associated traits based from folklore (which is why gnomes often feel neither fish nor meat and in their own way kinda pointless, because there already are elves, dwarves and halflings).
Basically, gnomes (should) prefer life secluded from other humanoids, based on their excentric nature.
I can't stand them for two reasons: 1. They are superfluous. D&D/ FR already has kobolds, Yuan-Ti, lizardfolk and half-dragons (and probably then some). 2. Their visual design bothers me. I shall not mention why or how. Let's just say I've spend too much time online to ever be able to take any bara scalies seriously.
Dragonborn are on the same level of bad design decisions as 4th edition tieflings.
As for me, I can't stand them because of four reasons: 1. Forgotten Realms already had the Saurials. Granted... they, too, came from a different world and then were enslaved by Moander. But they are so much more appealing. I mean, who doesn't want to roleplay as the Baby?!
2. Dragonlance already did the Dragonborn thingy decades before 3.5e (back then Dragonborn wasn't even a race, but a TEMPLATE for divine spellcasters of Bahamut). Draconians had so much more identity and interesting abilities. And them being created from corrupted eggs of metallic dragons also made them rather fascinating. It would have been so much better if WotC did just used the well established Draconians for their 4e and 5e editions. 3. Not only do I find the decision of uplifting them from metamorphosed, non-scalykind devotees of Bahamut into a race of their own rather iffy. Their utter lack of tails, wings and overall macho builds makes them look like comedy reliefs. 4. Whenever I read someone typing 'Dragonborn', I shout FUS RO DAH.
So, yeah. I'd rather have scalykinds which indeed look the part for any upcoming D&D cRPG. And not wrestlers with a dragon mask on their head.
Actually, I think it makes sense to have gnomes an uncommon race, lore-wise. Not because they are actually uncommon, but because they are "shy". The more I read about them, the more it becomes clear to me that gnomes are based on Heinzelmännchen and similar house-elves and kobolds from folklore. (I should mention that elves, gnomes, dwarves and kobolds are actually all the same thing, folklore wise.) D&D elves and dwarves are based on their Lord of the Rings counterparts, while gnomes take all the other associated traits based from folklore (which is why gnomes often feel neither fish nor meat and in their own way kinda pointless, because there already are elves, dwarves and halflings).
Basically, gnomes (should) prefer life secluded from other humanoids, based on their excentric nature.
Both true and not true. Almost every village had their own legends, and of course there were some common themes and then of course tales travel etc. But, there was no "Unified folklore theory", and speaking of my native country of Sweden, we definately made a difference between gnomes (whom were protectors of the household, if you treated them right) and various assortments of "knytt", "underworldings" (dwarves, goblins, ghosts of children etc), faires (in Sweden, elves did not exist, at all, only faires) and seductive woodland creatures (nokken, nymphs etc), and once christianity came, we also started to get daemons (succubi, incibus, mares) - but in germany, not only did both elves and faires exist but were the same thing, and in Ireland they have all sorts of malicious pranksters like spriggan and leprechauns that have no counterpart in Sweden. Tolkien actually based his work mostly on german and scandinavian mythical creatures, as well as the old Asatru legends. So, how much difference, if any, there is between a dwarf and an elf (aelfir) and a fairy entirely depends on when and where you are.
@DrakeICN When I say 'they are the same thing' I mean they serve the same purpose. They are 'otherworldly' tiny people that fill in the gaps of human understanding in history. Wether or not they are actually the same thing is a different story. The 'origin' and 'purpose' are the same though. Of course names and details change from culture to culture and each culture has devoloped them into something unique. But at their core they are all the same.
But, hey, I guess you think you're the designer of lore for 5th Edition.
You all can whine and moan and piss on dragonborn all you want, they're not going anywhere in 5th edition. Great, you dislike dragonborn. And...the world keeps on turning...
The spellplague, frankly, is why D&D 5th Edition feels more like AD&D2 in terms of lore, so I wouldn't complain too much... See, they had to reconcile all the changes in 4E with what people really wanted. The spellplague actually ended up being convenient to do so in that regard. It gave them an excuse. And, by the way, I consider 4E a huge aberration. But ignoring the fact that it allowed 5th to have better lore, that's just silly.
Also, shitting on what is, frankly, a lore-heavy race, dragonborn, is also quite silly. (Because they actually have to be lore-heavy.) Just throwing it out there.
Just wondering though, what don't you like about 5th? Like I don't want to start an argument or debate over which editions is the "best" or whatever, I just want to know what people don't like about 5th edition.
Mostly because the game world went from "realistic assuming magic and monsters existed in the real world, kind of" to "Jar-Jar Binks levels of goofy".
Game world changes and gameplay mechanics changes are separate things. I myself absolutely hated all the changes made to the Realms during the 4e timeline, but 4e itself as a set of gameplay rules was ok, not as good as 3.5e but ok. For me it is 2e that I hate and so my love for the IE games is in spite of them being 2e, which says a lot. My preference: 5e > 3.5e > 4e > 2e > 2e(PsT version).
But the point is moot, though, because WotC has been very emphatically clear that any new IP D&D game will only use the most current rules version.
I can do a compromise. There can be a playable NPC dragonborn that explains their backstory and why they suddenly and magically appeared in the setting and allow other NPCs like those from small villages treat it with suspicion and even pitchforks all be for it.
Bit if they introduce dragonborn without any repercussions and they're treated just like a travelling human, I'll be extremely disappointed.
And as I said, that's in FR. If it is another setting where they are already established than I am perfectly cool with them.
The first critter is an owlbear. They have existed since first edition as far as I know. They were the fruit of a mad wizard who made experiences mixing different species. It was all detailed on the 2nd edition monster manual actually.
The 2nd edition also had the ''artic owlbear'' and the ''winged owlbear'' variants.
Hey! Drow are in the player's handbook! Drow, Wood Elves, and High Elves are the default Elf subraces. Also, I don't understand the hate for having a Dragonborn player character, they're in the default rules which means they probably will be a playable race. If one doesn't like that they can simply not play a Dragonborn, /shrug
For me D&D is a game about fantasy fulfillment. My group often homebrews stuff so each player can play a particular sort of fantasy and express themselves in an RP environment. If people love Dragonborn I think we should have Dragonborn, but that's just me.
In fact. . .
TOTAL LIST OF CANON, OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED 5e RACES BELOW! I want ALL of them in a 5e game eventually! Like how NWN2 had a massive race selection.
Player's Handbook Races: These are most likely to be all included in a new D&D game.
Human, Variant Human
Elf: Drow, Wood Elf, High Elf
Dwarf: Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf
Halfling: Lightfoot, Stout
Tiefling
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Gnome: Forest Gnome, Rock Gnome
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide includes:
Half-Drow, Half-High Elf, Half-Wood Elf variants
Ghostwise Halfling
Dreugar
Deep Gnome
Tiefling: Variants (Basically to be like 2e Tieflings physically)
Volo's Guide to Monsters includes:
Aasimar: Protector, Scourge, Fallen
Firbolg
Goblin
Goliath
Hobgoblin
Kenku
Kobold
Lizardfolk
Orc
Tabaxi (Anthropomorphic catfolk)
Triton (Merfolk essentially)
Yuan-ti Purebloods
Dungeon Master's Guide has
Eladrin subrace for Elves
Princes of the Apocolypse I believe added
Genasi: Earth, Water, Fire, Wind
Arakocra.
The uncommon races in the book explain that they may not appear in every D&D setting. Every setting has Humans, Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings but not every setting has Gnomes, Dragonborn, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Tieflings.
With Volo's guide though we got a lot of cool and interesting races and lore to go with them. Tabaxi are from the mysterious land of Maztica, Firbolgs are peaceful fey-giants, and we now have an option to play a Fallen Aasimar which I assume will please any edgelord!
Edit: This doesn't include the weekly Unearthed Arcana articles which add more races and subraces every now and again. But they aren't official and are tagged as playtest material so until they feature in a proper book they will not be listed.
Just because something is 'canon' doesn't mean one has to like or even use it. Case and point: Abdel Adrian.
Alas, the beauty of D&D is that the only thing that's 'canon' is what you put into your game. So unless WotC would demand Beamdog to put Dragonborn in their game, there is no need why they would have to.
I mean, look at Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate. Both games take a lot of liberties the actual lore. Also, I remember reading that PS:T apparently rewrote a good chunk of the Gith lore, which then retroactively was made canon (if anyone has the source for this, I would greatly appreciate if they would share it >.>)
If the next game will indeed be D&D based, then I very much hope that WotC will give Beamdog all the artistic freedom they need. But I am really hoping for something set before the spellplague, if it's set in FR. After all, that is (as far as I can tell) the most popular version of FR, ergo the version that would make for the safest bet.
PS: But yeah, WotC would probably want to promote the current version, which also includes Dragonborn so meh :V I mean, I don't know who exactly decided what goes and doesn't in the Neverwinter MMO lore wise, but that game is imo an insult to the fandom. Also evident in the playerbase, most of which have little to no experience with D&D or FR prior to that game.
I guess I'm more looking for an accurate representation of the 5e rules in video game format, essentially what NWN2 was to 3.5.
So like if I REALLY want to play my Dragonborn Ranger, Kirin, but don't have a D&D group to play with I can just play the 5e video game to hold me over.
But yeah I guess it comes from two different places. I'm wanting the 5e rules to come first, story second. Then maybe with an expansion or game on the same engine they can explore stuff like PS:T did.
Edit: Also, the current 5e setting I think is fine? Though I'm not sure all the discrepancies. Eilistraee, Mystra, Vhaerun, Bhaal, Myrkul, and a bunch of other gods have been retconned back into existence. I think there was a conscious effort to make 5e FR back to 2e/3e FR since a lot of the 4e specific stuff seems to be not present. At least that is what I gathered from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
I honestly don't think that accurate rules are all that beneficial. Look at NWN2. That game is praised for how accurate it reflects the 3.5 edition rules. It also really suffers from that.
D&D rules are designed for tabletop gaming, not for PC gaming. That is why all the Dragon Ages and Numeneras of video gaming deviate so much from the the rules that inspired them. I mean, the balancing in BG, Neverwinter Nights and Co. is a nightmare and honestly I think the attempt to stay true to the original rules is part of the reason.
Like, yeah, of course I want the rules to be accurate but compromises have to be made. Not everything that works in pen and paper works on screen.
PS: Ultimately I want a great roleplaying experience. I don't want to be feel forced into powergaming just because the balancing is off.
PPS: That doesn't mean I just want a three classes system. Please give me all the classes. But I understand if certain rule based elements about the classes, races, etc. have to be altered to make the game better.
Comments
Oh, and also because WTF its time to fix the game mechanics already, the competition is stiffer now than it was 20 years ago.
To illustrate my first point, here is a typical 5th edition goofy critter (by artist brynn metheney):
To illustrate my second point, here is some typical critter from some competition (official artwork);
Owlbear from the 1st edition Monster Manual.
And there is no hate for Dragonborn here, they just don't fit the Forgotten Realms setting. They were shoehorned in for the 4th edition (basically the wiki saying, "we don't know how they got here, but here you go!" under the History section) and we all know how well 4th Edition Forgotten Realms with the Spell Plague was received.
Tieflings and assimar were part of 3rd edition and fit because the planes that their respective bloodlines come from were always in the setting. Every other race that you mentioned also has been in the forgotten realms Toril setting since the beginning.
With that, they are also only an uncommon race according to Player's Handbook, so they do not need to be included in official D&D games. And if you desperately want it, I guess it can be added as a DLC like it was in Neverwinter Online (for the insane price of $75).
(Mother of Mystra, If my niece sees this she'll want one for her birthday...)
But, hey, I guess you think you're the designer of lore for 5th Edition. Guess, it's ok, @deltago decided we can discard everything from the Spellplague, because...whelp, dragonborn don't belong in the Forgotten Realms.
*Rubs hands*
I can't stand them for two reasons:
1. They are superfluous. D&D/ FR already has kobolds, Yuan-Ti, lizardfolk and half-dragons (and probably then some).
2. Their visual design bothers me. I shall not mention why or how. Let's just say I've spend too much time online to ever be able to take any bara scalies seriously.
Dragonborn are on the same level of bad design decisions as 4th edition tieflings.
Actually, I think it makes sense to have gnomes an uncommon race, lore-wise. Not because they are actually uncommon, but because they are "shy". The more I read about them, the more it becomes clear to me that gnomes are based on Heinzelmännchen and similar house-elves and kobolds from folklore. (I should mention that elves, gnomes, dwarves and kobolds are actually all the same thing, folklore wise.) D&D elves and dwarves are based on their Lord of the Rings counterparts, while gnomes take all the other associated traits based from folklore (which is why gnomes often feel neither fish nor meat and in their own way kinda pointless, because there already are elves, dwarves and halflings).
Basically, gnomes (should) prefer life secluded from other humanoids, based on their excentric nature.
1. Forgotten Realms already had the Saurials.
Granted... they, too, came from a different world and then were enslaved by Moander. But they are so much more appealing. I mean, who doesn't want to roleplay as the Baby?!
2. Dragonlance already did the Dragonborn thingy decades before 3.5e (back then Dragonborn wasn't even a race, but a TEMPLATE for divine spellcasters of Bahamut). Draconians had so much more identity and interesting abilities.
And them being created from corrupted eggs of metallic dragons also made them rather fascinating. It would have been so much better if WotC did just used the well established Draconians for their 4e and 5e editions.
3. Not only do I find the decision of uplifting them from metamorphosed, non-scalykind devotees of Bahamut into a race of their own rather iffy. Their utter lack of tails, wings and overall macho builds makes them look like comedy reliefs.
4. Whenever I read someone typing 'Dragonborn', I shout FUS RO DAH.
So, yeah. I'd rather have scalykinds which indeed look the part for any upcoming D&D cRPG. And not wrestlers with a dragon mask on their head.
Also, shitting on what is, frankly, a lore-heavy race, dragonborn, is also quite silly. (Because they actually have to be lore-heavy.) Just throwing it out there. What the hell kind of bad Pinterest pics of dragonborn have you been seeing? LMAO!
But the point is moot, though, because WotC has been very emphatically clear that any new IP D&D game will only use the most current rules version.
Bit if they introduce dragonborn without any repercussions and they're treated just like a travelling human, I'll be extremely disappointed.
And as I said, that's in FR. If it is another setting where they are already established than I am perfectly cool with them.
For me D&D is a game about fantasy fulfillment. My group often homebrews stuff so each player can play a particular sort of fantasy and express themselves in an RP environment. If people love Dragonborn I think we should have Dragonborn, but that's just me.
In fact. . .
TOTAL LIST OF CANON, OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED 5e RACES BELOW! I want ALL of them in a 5e game eventually! Like how NWN2 had a massive race selection.
Player's Handbook Races: These are most likely to be all included in a new D&D game.
Human, Variant Human
Elf: Drow, Wood Elf, High Elf
Dwarf: Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf
Halfling: Lightfoot, Stout
Tiefling
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Gnome: Forest Gnome, Rock Gnome
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide includes:
Half-Drow, Half-High Elf, Half-Wood Elf variants
Ghostwise Halfling
Dreugar
Deep Gnome
Tiefling: Variants (Basically to be like 2e Tieflings physically)
Volo's Guide to Monsters includes:
Aasimar: Protector, Scourge, Fallen
Firbolg
Goblin
Goliath
Hobgoblin
Kenku
Kobold
Lizardfolk
Orc
Tabaxi (Anthropomorphic catfolk)
Triton (Merfolk essentially)
Yuan-ti Purebloods
Dungeon Master's Guide has
Eladrin subrace for Elves
Princes of the Apocolypse I believe added
Genasi: Earth, Water, Fire, Wind
Arakocra.
The uncommon races in the book explain that they may not appear in every D&D setting. Every setting has Humans, Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings but not every setting has Gnomes, Dragonborn, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Tieflings.
With Volo's guide though we got a lot of cool and interesting races and lore to go with them. Tabaxi are from the mysterious land of Maztica, Firbolgs are peaceful fey-giants, and we now have an option to play a Fallen Aasimar which I assume will please any edgelord!
Edit: This doesn't include the weekly Unearthed Arcana articles which add more races and subraces every now and again. But they aren't official and are tagged as playtest material so until they feature in a proper book they will not be listed.
Case and point: Abdel Adrian.
Alas, the beauty of D&D is that the only thing that's 'canon' is what you put into your game.
So unless WotC would demand Beamdog to put Dragonborn in their game,
there is no need why they would have to.
I mean, look at Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate. Both games take a lot of liberties the actual lore. Also, I remember reading that PS:T apparently rewrote a good chunk of the Gith lore, which then retroactively was made canon (if anyone has the source for this, I would greatly appreciate if they would share it >.>)
If the next game will indeed be D&D based, then I very much hope that WotC will give Beamdog all the artistic freedom they need. But I am really hoping for something set before the spellplague, if it's set in FR. After all, that is (as far as I can tell) the most popular version of FR, ergo the version that would make for the safest bet.
PS: But yeah, WotC would probably want to promote the current version, which also includes Dragonborn so meh :V
I mean, I don't know who exactly decided what goes and doesn't in the Neverwinter MMO lore wise, but that game is imo an insult to the fandom. Also evident in the playerbase, most of which have little to no experience with D&D or FR prior to that game.
So like if I REALLY want to play my Dragonborn Ranger, Kirin, but don't have a D&D group to play with I can just play the 5e video game to hold me over.
But yeah I guess it comes from two different places. I'm wanting the 5e rules to come first, story second. Then maybe with an expansion or game on the same engine they can explore stuff like PS:T did.
Edit: Also, the current 5e setting I think is fine? Though I'm not sure all the discrepancies. Eilistraee, Mystra, Vhaerun, Bhaal, Myrkul, and a bunch of other gods have been retconned back into existence. I think there was a conscious effort to make 5e FR back to 2e/3e FR since a lot of the 4e specific stuff seems to be not present. At least that is what I gathered from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
Look at NWN2. That game is praised for how accurate it reflects the 3.5 edition rules.
It also really suffers from that.
D&D rules are designed for tabletop gaming, not for PC gaming. That is why all the Dragon Ages and Numeneras of video gaming deviate so much from the the rules that inspired them.
I mean, the balancing in BG, Neverwinter Nights and Co. is a nightmare and honestly I think the attempt to stay true to the original rules is part of the reason.
Like, yeah, of course I want the rules to be accurate but compromises have to be made.
Not everything that works in pen and paper works on screen.
PS: Ultimately I want a great roleplaying experience.
I don't want to be feel forced into powergaming just because the balancing is off.
PPS: That doesn't mean I just want a three classes system. Please give me all the classes.
But I understand if certain rule based elements about the classes, races, etc. have to be altered to make the game better.
Sooo... ents? Treants? Dryads? Probably some others?