I know we already have a thread on this but it really seems to have strayed off topic, and to have got fairly petty in spots. So just to clarify this is not a discussion of what is right or wrong or anything of the sort. I would like to simply discuss what setting implications are present in the 5e players handbook and what you could do with them.

I just grabbed the PHB a couple of days ago and have been making a list of anything rules wise that implies things about the assumed setting. Normally I don't give a damn about implied setting. I come up with a setting and beat the game mechanics with a hammer till they kinda look right for what I want. However for my 5e game I thought it would be an interesting change of pace to go with a whatever is in the book approach. This is a time saver for me at the moment because I have some assumptions to start with.

So anyway, I will start off with what has jumped out at me so far. These are in no particular order other than how I jotted them in my notebook. So without further adieu;

*We have a list of races and classes that we know will be present, which for brevity sake I will assume everyone is familiar with.

*The existence of Tieflings implies that demons are real and interact with mortals.

* In several class descriptions it is stated that actual leveled members of that class are rare in comparison with their mundane counterparts. Not all religious figures are clerics, nor all soldiers true fighters. I think it is safe to assume that this is true for all classes that it would make sense for.

* Adventurers are stated to be an exceptional sort in comparison with common folk.

The two points above lead me to believe that most people are akin to being 0 leveled. You can do this nicely I think by just giving them standard hit die and a background.

* There are thieves guilds about, as well as druidic orders, and monastic traditions.

* There is a fey realm that interacts with the real world.

* There are cthuluoid entities

* The levels of technology can vary widely, implied by the existence of barbarians along side some of the gear in the equipment lists.

* There was a common currency minted at some point.

* There is a specific organization to the planes of existence.

So far that is not too much to go on but it is enough to work from. Thoughts? Anyone else came across something that seems to imply things about the setting?

Greyhawk is mentioned directly and indirectly throughout.
Forgotten realms as well.

I wonder if there'll be fresh Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk material released?
That'd be nice.

There are Gith! So will there be Psionics?

Quote from: Arkansan;782655* In several class descriptions it is stated that actual leveled members of that class are rare in comparison with their mundane counterparts. Not all religious figures are clerics, nor all soldiers true fighters. I think it is safe to assume that this is true for all classes that it would make sense for.

* Adventurers are stated to be an exceptional sort in comparison with common folk.

The two points above lead me to believe that most people are akin to being 0 leveled. You can do this nicely I think by just giving them standard hit die and a background.

I believe it was stated early on that, if possible, NPCs could be build using PC rules or as monsters, so to speak, the way they where build in 4e.

To take an example, the NPC stats for the knight show us a clearly advanced warrior. He also clearly isn't build using classes. He has no class abilities to speak of, but a unique ability and a boatload of hit dice.


What I take from this, is that there are not just joe shmoes without class abilities, level 0 characters as you put it, but also powerful and dangerous people, who none the less lack a class. Such people can be dangerous opponents and even main villains, but they lack the versatility and range of abilities an adventurer aquires.


In play this would mean that Rodderik the Devious, scoundrel and adventurer extraordinare, who keeps getting in the PCs way is build using classes, he's one of the rare people who is an actual rogue.

However, Gorsh, orc warlord of the Dreadtooth clan, is no barbarion or fighter. He is a CR 12 orc with unique abilities. He's a remarkable individual, but not the same way as a adventurer is.


Coincidentially, lacking the versatility and sheer number of abilities classes grant, NPCs of the second brand are much easier to run for the DM.

Quote from: Gold Roger;782671I believe it was stated early on that, if possible, NPCs could be build using PC rules or as monsters, so to speak, the way they where build in 4e.

To take an example, the NPC stats for the knight show us a clearly advanced warrior. He also clearly isn't build using classes. He has no class abilities to speak of, but a unique ability and a boatload of hit dice.


What I take from this, is that there are not just joe shmoes without class abilities, level 0 characters as you put it, but also powerful and dangerous people, who none the less lack a class. Such people can be dangerous opponents and even main villains, but they lack the versatility and range of abilities an adventurer aquires.


In play this would mean that Rodderik the Devious, scoundrel and adventurer extraordinare, who keeps getting in the PCs way is build using classes, he's one of the rare people who is an actual rogue.

However, Gorsh, orc warlord of the Dreadtooth clan, is no barbarion or fighter. He is a CR 12 orc with unique abilities. He's a remarkable individual, but not the same way as a adventurer is.


Coincidentially, lacking the versatility and sheer number of abilities classes grant, NPCs of the second brand are much easier to run for the DM.

Right. I guess what I was saying is that the rules seem to imply that the vast majority of people in the game world are ordinary in every respect, that even those who are not classed per se but are mechanically close to it are exceptional. It seems as if it could be read that running across powerful individuals and monsters is not an everyday event. I guess that what I am seeing is that so far the implied "power level" of a stock "D&D world" as the PHB puts it, is not that high. There is plenty of magic and monsters around but its not just laying around every corner. Though I could just be seeing what I want to see.

Quote from: Arkansan;782701Right. I guess what I was saying is that the rules seem to imply that the vast majority of people in the game world are ordinary in every respect, that even those who are not classed per se but are mechanically close to it are exceptional. It seems as if it could be read that running across powerful individuals and monsters is not an everyday event. I guess that what I am seeing is that so far the implied "power level" of a stock "D&D world" as the PHB puts it, is not that high. There is plenty of magic and monsters around but its not just laying around every corner. Though I could just be seeing what I want to see.

I agree.

As to seeing what one wants to see, I think that is the point. The material drops hints into both directions and you get to choose how the world looks.

It is an implied setting after all, not a definite one.

I hope the DMG gives us more to work with the implied setting.

Yeah there is not really too much to go on in the PHB. Enough to work out some things but not as much as I might have hoped.

The rules for the old ones (and possibly the fey and the infernal) implies that there are beings that are outside the normal godly realm and not bounded by any such rules as alignment or even clerical empowerment.

They simply are and do as they please.

Quote from: Omega;782729The rules for the old ones (and possibly the fey and the infernal) implies that there are beings that are outside the normal godly realm and not bounded by any such rules as alignment or even clerical empowerment.

They simply are and do as they please.

Yeah I kind of like that. In fact I am thinking this may be a major factor in my upcoming campaign world.

Quote from: tenbones;782665There are Gith! So will there be Psionics?

The preview of the Flumph specifically says that it's attracted to psionic monsters and characters.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;782796The preview of the Flumph specifically says that it's attracted to psionic monsters and characters.

Phone Breaking Image.

Spoiler

Here's another one...

Death, Undeath and the Afterlife

An interesting change in this edition from most previous editions is that being made into an undead doesn't prevent the various Raise Dead spells from working. Most previous editions had wording to that effect within the Raise Dead spell descriptions, but this one is missing that wording.

So if Bob has been made into a zombie, or a ghost, or a vampire he can still be raised even with the lowest level Revivify spell.

Now the lower level spells still need the corpse to work, so in the case of Zombie Bob or Vampire Bob you need to go find where they've wandered off to, but the spell description is silent on whether you can cast it directly on undead Bob and he'll come back to life or whether you need to "kill" the undead first and then cast it on the body.

With non-corporeal undead such as shadows, wraiths or ghosts, it's a bit weirder. You can still raise people using their body - so what happens to the non-corporeal undead then?

The only example we've got so far is the shadow. If a person dies and becomes a shadow, and is then subsequently raised, the shadow still exists. It's not destroyed by the raising of the person but it does instinctively know that they've been raised and might hunt them down.

Now that's the only example we've got so it doesn't necessarily mean that in the general case a non-corporeal undead will still exist after the person they used to be is raised.

Now let's look at the Speak With Dead spell.

This one makes it clear that it is the corpse itself that speaks: it must have a working mouth. It also makes it clear that it's not the "soul" of the deceased that is summoned to answers the questions, but the "animating spirit" - which definitely implies that your "soul" and your "animating spirit" are two different things. It also makes it clear that this "animating spirit" can't be summoned if the deceased has become an undead. However, the animating spirit has the personality and knowledge of the deceased - but not knowledge of anything that happened since they died.

So it seems apparent here that in the setting that a person has three things:

Body
Soul
Spirit

Given the wording of Speak With Dead, it seems clear that undead possess the spirit of the deceased (and possibly also their body!) but given the wording of Raise Dead, it seems clear that undead don't possess the soul of the deceased.

Putting all this together, we seem to get the following metaphysics:

1) A living person has a body, spirit and soul. The soul is the person's free will and identity, while the spirit is what ties it to the body. The spirit therefore takes on the shape of the soul and copies it's personality and knowledge, although it doesn't have proper free will.

2) When a person dies, their spirit normally hangs around with the body fading as the body decays, while the soul goes on to the afterlife. A Speak With Dead spell can make it animate the body temporarily to answer questions.

3) An undead is the soulless spirit of a dead person. The spirit may continue to animate the body (in the case of a corporeal undead) or may wander separately from the body (in the case of a non-corporeal undead).

4) If a person is raised, their soul is brought back from the afterlife and either re-attached to their existing body or attached to a newly created body.

5) It seems to be up to the DM whether doing this also summons back the spirit of the person or creates a new spirit. In the former case, this would mean if someone died and their spirit became a ghost or specter then raising them would remotely destroy that undead. In the latter case this would mean if someone died and their spirit became a ghost of a specter raising them would mean the undead still existed even though the person was alive again. In either case, the spell description is clear (by ommission) that if your spirit is an active undead this is no impediment to being raised.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;782796The preview of the Flumph specifically says that it's attracted to psionic monsters and characters.

One of the Warlock perks mentions resistance to psychic attacks. But doesnt say what that is. Charm? Psi? no clue.

Quote from: Omega;783006One of the Warlock perks mentions resistance to psychic attacks. But doesnt say what that is. Charm? Psi? no clue.

That's psychic damage, a damage type. Some spells (like Vicious Mockery) cause it.

There is no direct connection to psi with that.

Here is something I wondered, is there any indication of just how common leveled types are supposed to be? I seem to recall that 1st edition had a suggested ratio in the DMG and I was wondering if there is or will be something like that suggestion for 5e. I was thinking for my campaign world something like 1:100.  I think this is more important than it may seem because it says quite a bit about the world at large. I know up thread it was discussed that some people may be powerful but lack a class per se, however to my way of seeing it there really isn't much difference. I suppose maybe a better way of putting it would be people worthy of being distinguished mechanically. So far all I see is hints at rarity but not an actual guiding principle.