[Bell of Lost Souls] D&D 2024 Edition Heads Back To Greyhawk, Makes Aasimar A Default Option

Post by Kyonshi
So... Aasimar, Goliaths, and Orcs now become player races, and Greyhawk
might be a standard setting?

Ugh. I'm all for weird PC races, but they don't belong in the PHB.
It's like pulling teeth to try to ban/change anything in there.

I was never a Greyhawk fan. I tried to use it once or twice, but it
didn't do anything for me.

Post by Kyonshi
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2024/05/dd-2024-edition-heads-back-to-greyhawk-makes-aasimar-a-default-option.html
D&D 2024 Edition Heads Back To Greyhawk, Makes Aasimar A Default Option
J.R. Zambrano
3 Minute Read
May 15 2024
That Game Informer interview is a doozy, revealing some potent new
details about the upcoming 2024 Player’s Handbook and beyond.
Yesterday, we got our first look at the new cover of D&D’s 2024 Player’s
Handbook, thanks to an interview and teaser from Game Informer. But, it
turns out, the gorgeous art of the new book isn’t the only thing
revealed. Greyhawk beckons in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Aasimar makes
the jump to the default Player’s Handbook choice. And a surprising
number of feats will be yours to choose from.
All of this is just a taste of things to come. It sounds like the
2024-2025 revision of the rules is going to be bigger than we thought.
Temperature is starting to rise on the ol’ excite-o-meter, which I guess
measures temperature as well as excitement. Which I suppose makes sense.
Heat makes molecules move. Heat also makes you really love or hate a
wrestler. Plus where else are you going to see Val Kilmer and Al Pacino
and Robert De Niro in the same movie?
You guessed it, Heat.

Do people actually talk like this? Especially about D&D? Ugh.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-05-17 20:44:04 UTC

Post by Kyonshi
So... Aasimar, Goliaths, and Orcs now become player races, and Greyhawk
might be a standard setting?

Ugh. I'm all for weird PC races, but they don't belong in the PHB.
It's like pulling teeth to try to ban/change anything in there.

I never had a problem saying no to PCs in that regard (just because
it's in the core book doesn't mean I have to use it in my campaign).
It is a bit more problematic because players have more of an
expectation that tieflings/etc. will be available, and are sometimes
disappointed that they can't use those critters.

But my campaigns tend to be fairly low-fantasy/low-magic and those
races don't really fit into the feel of the game world. I'm generally
not opposed to orcs, except any player who choses them should expect a
much rougher time of it, since they WILL be disadvantaged by their
choice of race in a human-dominated world.

(in fairness, elves don't fare much better ;-)

Post by Justisaur
I was never a Greyhawk fan. I tried to use it once or twice, but it
didn't do anything for me.

Yeah. I don't think WOTC is going to have much success. I don't think
Greyhawk is the type of gameworld most people like.

Well, unless WOTC radically changes everything about Greyhawk,
stripping away everything that made the game unloveable (and unique).
In which case... why bother?

Kyonshi

2024-05-20 11:20:42 UTC

Post by Kyonshi
So... Aasimar, Goliaths, and Orcs now become player races, and Greyhawk
might be a standard setting?

Ugh. I'm all for weird PC races, but they don't belong in the PHB.
It's like pulling teeth to try to ban/change anything in there.

I never had a problem saying no to PCs in that regard (just because
it's in the core book doesn't mean I have to use it in my campaign).
It is a bit more problematic because players have more of an
expectation that tieflings/etc. will be available, and are sometimes
disappointed that they can't use those critters.
But my campaigns tend to be fairly low-fantasy/low-magic and those
races don't really fit into the feel of the game world. I'm generally
not opposed to orcs, except any player who choses them should expect a
much rougher time of it, since they WILL be disadvantaged by their
choice of race in a human-dominated world.
(in fairness, elves don't fare much better ;-)

I actually would call Goliaths rather low-fantasy. They basically are
juts the archetype of the big brutish guy.
I could imagine a game where you limit the choice of races to only
dwarves, humans, and goliaths.
The problem with them is that they were introduced in a 3e supplement,
and since then they always have been an also-ran of a race. I mean, who
really wants to play a goliath in the first place when there's other
things available. They are literally just big brutish guys. Which of
course leads them to be played as barbarians because what else are you
gonna do with them?

I find the choice of goliaths a bit weird. I would have thought they'd
choose something they can trademark, but I doubt you can properly
trademark a character type based on a biblical story, wihthout even the
name changed.

Aasimar on the other hand I could also see in some games. They are the
other end of the deal with the tieflings. But together with all the
other races it kind of ends in some indistinguishable blend. Especially
if they decide to present them in such a bland way as 5e did to the
tieflings.
I also can see a game with those: just imagine a game where your options
are aasimar, human, and tiefling. I think you could do a lot with that
duality.

Post by Justisaur
I was never a Greyhawk fan. I tried to use it once or twice, but it
didn't do anything for me.

Yeah. I don't think WOTC is going to have much success. I don't think
Greyhawk is the type of gameworld most people like.
Well, unless WOTC radically changes everything about Greyhawk,
stripping away everything that made the game unloveable (and unique).
In which case... why bother?

They most likely are trying to do the same thing as they did with third
edition, which in my opinion failed pretty badly. Greyhawk was the
"standard" setting for that edition, because it's all so vanilla (after
all DnD/ADnD was built on that setting), and then they fail to give
people any guidance of how to actually use that setting. I think the
only proper stuff for Greyhawk from the 3e times were the RPGA things
for their living campaign, with all the other stuff about Greyhawk just
isolated mentions in the middle of their rulebooks. I think most people
went for FR or Eberron instead, because those at least had campaign guides.

Justisaur

2024-05-21 13:31:20 UTC

Post by Kyonshi
I find the choice of goliaths a bit weird. I would have thought they'd
choose something they can trademark, but I doubt you can properly
trademark a character type based on a biblical story, wihthout even the
name changed.

They seem like they're just 1e's Half-Ogre with a different skin and
origin. Also not really trademarkable.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-05-21 16:01:16 UTC

They seem like they're just 1e's Half-Ogre with a different skin and
origin. Also not really trademarkable.

I was never fond of Half-Orcs, but that's probably mostly because -
when we started playing - the race was almost always played as an
'evil' character... and evil PCs usually caused more problems for the
party than they were worth. It was always the same sort of players who
picked Half Orc characters too; they'd inevitably choose the assassin
class, backstab all the other characters, and then demand the DM give
them XP for the deed.

When I started DMing, I didn't outright forbid half-orc characters but
did discourage players from chosing them. As the setting developed,
half-orcs became an impossibility, just because humans and goblinoids
couldn't crossbreed (earlier 'half-orcs' were retconned to be just
particularly human-looking orcs ;-)

I'd have outright forbidden half-ogres from the start, though.

Justisaur

2024-05-22 23:20:43 UTC

They seem like they're just 1e's Half-Ogre with a different skin and
origin. Also not really trademarkable.

I was never fond of Half-Orcs, but that's probably mostly because -
when we started playing - the race was almost always played as an
'evil' character... and evil PCs usually caused more problems for the
party than they were worth. It was always the same sort of players who
picked Half Orc characters too; they'd inevitably choose the assassin
class, backstab all the other characters, and then demand the DM give
them XP for the deed.
When I started DMing, I didn't outright forbid half-orc characters but
did discourage players from chosing them. As the setting developed,
half-orcs became an impossibility, just because humans and goblinoids
couldn't crossbreed (earlier 'half-orcs' were retconned to be just
particularly human-looking orcs ;-)

I don't remember any of those, most DMs in my area banned assassins. I
was one who didn't exactly, but I banned evil characters, so you could
technically play one if you started higher than level 1 and had changed
your alignment in your background.

The asshole PVPers were mostly theives, or multiclass with theives and
or magic-users.

I also had a rule of no PVP after I quickly got tired of that. If some
character was particularly bad and acting evil anyway, causing trouble
for the party in other ways, I'd lift it. That only happened a couple
times and the offending character was quickly dealt with by *all* the
rest of the party, and the player never returned.

All I ever saw with half-orcs were straight fighters, I played a couple
myself.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
I'd have outright forbidden half-ogres from the start, though.

I let one guy play one as he was the Champions GM, everyone else and I
wanted him to play, and he said that's the only way he'd play, but it
didn't go well. He had a 3 int (or was it 2?) and basically just caused
problems by not acting unless someone asked him to do something, then
did the stupidest thing he could think of that might vaguely have
something to do with what he was asked. He was the only one who thought
it was funny.

That lasted all of one session.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-05-23 15:08:08 UTC

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
I was never fond of Half-Orcs, but that's probably mostly because -
when we started playing - the race was almost always played as an
'evil' character... and evil PCs usually caused more problems for the
party than they were worth. It was always the same sort of players who
picked Half Orc characters too; they'd inevitably choose the assassin
class, backstab all the other characters, and then demand the DM give
them XP for the deed.

We never banned assassins outright. But it was discouraged. The class
itself was poorly balanced anyway, and its mechanics didn't really fit
well with the rest of the game. Their exclusion from 2nd Edition was
very welcome. You could still be an assassin if you wanted; you just
didn't get any special class for it.

Thieves were also a favorite of bad players. "I'm a Thief, therefore I
/have/ to steal from the other PCs!". For that reason alone, the
renaming of the class in 2E to Rogue was another welcome change.

A lot of 1E seemed to be designed so players could be purposefully
antagonistic towards one another. It was annoying.

Post by Justisaur
I also had a rule of no PVP after I quickly got tired of that. If some
character was particularly bad and acting evil anyway, causing trouble
for the party in other ways, I'd lift it. That only happened a couple
times and the offending character was quickly dealt with by *all* the
rest of the party, and the player never returned.

The worst part of the PVP was it was so... stupid. Look, if your
character has a grudge against another, and needs to kill him... I get
it. But make it part of the story. A lot of it was just, "I backstab
the Mage for the lulz!" sort of stuff.

Those early years of playing D&D... I don't want to say I don't have
fond memories of those days, because I do. D&D was a magical game, and
even with all the issues, it was a great experience. But my real
fondness for the game came after I found a stable group of friends
with whom to play, and whose style of playing was more in tune with
what I myself enjoyed. People whose characters worked together, who
enjoyed roleplaying and story, and if there was conflict, worked it
out in the game that was generally enjoyable to everyone.

Justisaur

2024-05-23 16:21:19 UTC

Oh yes, most definitely. They'd just do it for the xp and loot,
nevermind the lulz. Usually it was newbies, as they were used to
competitive board games, but there were those like that GM that just
screwed up games for the lulz.

It's more like a team sport, you don't throw your fellow players under
the bus or you're going to be off the team.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Those early years of playing D&D... I don't want to say I don't have
fond memories of those days, because I do. D&D was a magical game, and
even with all the issues, it was a great experience. But my real
fondness for the game came after I found a stable group of friends
with whom to play, and whose style of playing was more in tune with
what I myself enjoyed. People whose characters worked together, who
enjoyed roleplaying and story, and if there was conflict, worked it
out in the game that was generally enjoyable to everyone.

Absolutely. I had plenty of bad experiences, but I had my most fun games
with longtime players and friends.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Kyonshi

2024-05-22 13:19:23 UTC