Tolkien dwarves kick ass. Master smiths and craftsmen, fearless warrior, loyal friends - what’s not to love?
They weren’t perfect, as was obvious from The Hobbit. If Thorin was any example they could be prideful, stiff necked, possessive, and parochial. Mountains could wear away before a dwarf would forgive or forget a wrong done them. They could be fearless warriors, or as useless as Bombur.
Pratchett has the trolls and dwarves as Jewish and Islamic people, but it’s not always clear to me which is which
…And it never even occurred to me that the Troll/Dwarf conflict was a metaphor for the Jewish/Islamic conflict.
I thought that was particularly visible in Thud!
Oh, yeah, it’s absolutely obvious, now that you mentioned it. I just somehow missed noticing it before.
Has anyone here encountered complaints about D&D going “woke” anywhere in the real world? I admittedly don’t care for every change, but I never couch my complaints in terms of going woke or being politically correct. I’ve certainly seen plenty of complaints online, but never face-to-face.
When I brought the new 2024 PHB to my regular game (average player age: 44), I mentioned that “races” were now called “species” and got a few eye rolls, but other than that we mostly argued about the new Weapon Mastery mechanic.
I’ve had conversations with people who dislike the homogenization of the PC races/species but no one has called it “woke” or considered it in political terms. But I don’t play with people who complain about “woke” anything.
I really like what they’re trying to do there (and are they basically backporting the feature from BG3??) but the implementation kinda sucks. I wish the abilities weapons gave you were about twice as impactful as they actually are.
I was using a 3rd party system that did something similar and when I heard this was coming officially I got excited but it turned out to be pretty underwhelming.
Yeah that’s the gameplay concern I heard from people as well but frankly the rules are just explicitly saying you can do what I was already doing.
Like, they spell out that Dwarven stone sense is cultural, so dwarves who aren’t raised by dwarves don’t have it. Great, but I was playing that way since 3.5.
That’s where I was. For years, I’ve felt as though species choice in D&D was essentially meaningless. You’re unlikely to experience any significant difference in game play whether your Fighter is an elf, dwarf, or a goliath. Getting rid of species ASI just further watered down the differences between them.
We haven’t actually tried it yet - we decided to implement them in our next campaign, which will happen… whenever. In theory, though, I like the new rules. They add flavor and interest to combat while still preserving its basic essence, and they give you an actual reason to use, say, a battleaxe instead of a longsword, or a glaive instead of a halberd; OTOH, since Mastery is limited to the full melee classes, making it more powerful would have unbalanced things, IMHO.
(Plus, I like that lances now count as polearms, and can be used to topple people while on foot).
Facebook, and product reviews. Is that the “real world” for you?
Here is the gawdawful NY Post-
I can tell you, being a Fighter once on a dungeon crawl- darkvision is REALLY handy. However, I picked a subclass- Rune Knight- that could get darkvision.
Over all, I like the new rules- the index is a hundred times better, and the rules glossary at the back is very helpful.
We are bringing in the new rules bit by bit- weapon mastery, then the new feat definitions, and some spells.
I had a Cleric, the only human in the party and thus the only one without darkvision. She grew obsessed with light and carried a bagful of coppers with Permanent Light cast upon them. Through constant practice she grew skilled at scaling them a long ways down the corridor.
Our DM would have the torch light, etc- alert the monsters before we got really close, so a source of light was a bad thing. I had to change- by permission- my fighting style to BlindFighting, or I had to move really slow and kept tripping. But once I got to 3rd level I took Rune Knight, and the Stone Rune.
No. I was aware of the controversy online, but was specifically looking for people who had encountered it in the real world. As with a lot of controversy, my theory is most of the hullabaloo was centered on online discourse rather than something most of us would encounter in the wild. That doesn’t make it any less real, I suppose.
In just about any D&D group, someone is going to have access to the light cantrip. Non-magical darkness is essentially a meaningless barrier these days.
OK, I’ll buy that. The index in the 2014 books was horrible.
And it’s nice if everyone in a group has darkvision and hence can do without all light sources, but in my experience, that almost never happens.
At some point you’re making darkness irrelevant except for the necessity of preparing the means to overcome it. How does this affect game mechanics?
People with darkvision are still automatically at disadvantage on perception checks in actual darkness, and it doesn’t apply to magical darkness, so it’s still a factor.