Baalzebul is back to normal (And other new lore discoveries.)

Demetrios1453 said:

It is mentioned, described, and even illustrated in the DMG, you know.

Click to expand...

Whoops, forgot about that. Nevermind!

JacktheRabbit said:

ZZzzzzZZZzzzZZZ

It is fluff, nothing more. It is fictional facts written about a fictional creature that does nothing. It does not change how a combat round is run, it does not change how damage happens. It changes the physical appearance of a creature that less than 1% of players care about and about as few DMs planned on using in a campaign.

Dont like it and want to stay "official"? Then set your campaign 6 months, 6 years, 6 decades before the blob form curse ended. You are sill "official" for what that is worth.

Click to expand...

Parmandur said:

On the contrary, "lore" is just fluff, ephemeral stuff that is made up and changeable, and yet we get books like this anyways. New ideas for use and repurposing by individual DMs, amidst the hard crunch, is good fuel for use at the table. There is no hard Canon or precedent, other than what fluff EotC will entertain at the moment.

Click to expand...

That holds true when you consider lore as a tool for gaming. Some people, however, are invested in the D&D worlds and their story just like other people are invested in--say--the GoT series, or the Malazan series, or the Wheel of Time series, and so on. They care about the lore because they care about those worlds beyond their gaming needs.

I'm one of those. If a hardcore FR fan saw my version of the Realms, they'd probably put me at the stake (it started out with the Realms as an inspiration when I had little time to dedicate to worldbuidling, it now basically no longer shares much with FR), but I do care about the Realms setting unrelatedly to what I do with it IMC.

Umbran said:

If they didn't ever *do* anything with that mystrey in the canon …

Click to expand...

When you "do something" with a mystery, it becomes less, well, mysterious.