D&D 4E D&D Fluff Wars: 4e vs 5e

CapnZapp

Legend
That's a hard question to answer, because whilst there are surface things that remain the same (for example, the existence of the Feywild, Shadowfell and Elemental Chaos, gnolls being creations of Yeenoghu), under the surface, they're a lot different. I can't speak of any changes to the Feywild or Shadowfell off the top of my head, but the Elemental Chaos is now more of a third "intermediary" plane - like the Astral or Ethereal Planes back in the classic Great Wheel, it's basically a barrier between the Elemental Planes and the land beyond, plus with lore tweaked so that the Elemental Planes as a whole functions more akin to the "Pillars of Creation" in Exalted. Likewise, though gnolls in 5e share the same base roots as 4e's gnolls, they have none of the versatility in characterization that 4e's "Playing Gnolls" presented us with.

I will thank you for pointing out the Lamia switch-over, though, because that's one of the few things I prefer about 5e to 4e. I mean, the skin-wearing carnivorous beetle-swarms of 4e were an awesomely creepy monster, but the weirdly sexy beast-taurette monster is more what I associate with Lamias. I just wish they'd gone a step above and either brought back the Lamia Noble or else made all Lamias snake-taurs, like they are in every non-D&D presentation of them.
I guess I'm just saying that before asking people what they think, you might consider listing the specifics of what people should have an opinion on.

Otherwise one person will be thinking of one thing, the second another, and the third will confuse official changes for some home campaign special creature...

The Lamia was just an example of a thing that many people might have forgotten about, or mixed up for some other creature.

The subject matter is simply vast, complex and contradictory, so you can't just ask about "monsters of edition X or Y, what do you prefer?"

That's all :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Imaro

Legend
I prefer the lore of 5e over 4e... I always felt the Great Wheel, Sigil, inhospitable planes (which yes you could adventure on but not without magic and/or extensive prep), alignment, the multiverse, monsters with backgrounds that veered away from their real world lore, etc have a much more weird fantasy/sword and sorcery feel as well as an originality 4e's mythological lore missed for me. I don't think 4e lore is bad but for me 4e felt like a revamping of classical (mostly greek??) mythology... something games like Exalted (IMO) had already done and done better. So for me it was much less like a breath of fresh air and much more like going for something less imaginative and more common. All IMO of course.
 

Igwilly

First Post
I love the 4E fluff for the aasimar/deva whereas the 3.5/5th Edition aasimar seems very bland to me.

One of the good things about 4e’s lore is the general tendency of leaving behind all those kinds of half-races to something more unique. Like dragonborns vs half-dragons and even half-orcs partially got that treatment, too.
 



pirate gonzalez

First Post
I personally really liked 4e's lore. 4e was the first edition I really started reading as a DM, even though I had played a bit of 3.5. The fact that things were kind of different from what i had seen in 3.5 was cool to me. The "Points of Light" allowed me to use the bits of lore they provided, while still creating a unique world. Even though I know I don't have to, I feel constrained by playing in the Forgotten Realms because there is SO much lore there that I just don't know. Bits and pieces of cool information is great for me, because then I can take it and make something cool with it.

I also enjoy high fantasy with players as heroes, and 4e had that feel. Overall while reading it I kept seeing things that I thought were "cool".
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I prefer the lore of 5e over 4e... I always felt the Great Wheel, Sigil, inhospitable planes (which yes you could adventure on but not without magic and/or extensive prep), alignment, the multiverse, monsters with backgrounds that veered away from their real world lore, etc have a much more weird fantasy/sword and sorcery feel as well as an originality 4e's mythological lore missed for me. I don't think 4e lore is bad but for me 4e felt like a revamping of classical (mostly greek??) mythology... something games like Exalted (IMO) had already done and done better. So for me it was much less like a breath of fresh air and much more like going for something less imaginative and more common. All IMO of course.


4E fluff is way more coherent than the traditional D&Disms...but lacks that Byzantine, hodgepodge WTF Heavy Metal factor. 4E alignment makes more sense metaphysically speaking (thanks to James Wyatt, most likely), but it lacks some entertaining factor of the silly alignment spectrum that weirdly helps with role playing on a practical level.
 

Igwilly

First Post
Dunno. I think there may be something particularly ... unseemly ... about being a D&D fluffer.
It should remain civil. Despite personal preferences, fluff quality is subjective enough to allow that.
However, more than one war happened because of fluff; but I think it was about changing fluff/no longer supporting fluff than fluff itself. Fluff preferences can easily be civil (or should be).
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top