D&D 5E Legends & Lore 3/17 /14

[Rydac]

https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140317

Discuss!

 

[GX.Sigma]

On the one hand, I don't like lore changes. Because why have a game called Dungeons & Dragons if you're going to change all the lore?

On the other hand, it seems like they're adding good stuff, especially to monsters that didn't have any lore to begin with (the 2e Jackalwere entry just describes the basic idea of what a jackalwere is, its combat stats, and how they mate). I like the idea of adding connections. As long as they're just adding stuff, it's AOK by me. If they print the Lawful Githzerai thing, I will be upset.

 

[Hussar]

I'm cautiously hopeful. At least they are flat out saying that the lore stuff won't be so heavily tied to things, so hopefully, it won't make it virtually impossible to make any changes. IOW, new concepts that might contradict established lore can still be added since it's not meant to be the final word on any given critter.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's getting harder and harder to read the whole thing. I'm skimming more and more.

As far as the post goes, eh. There's not much to discuss on the front of it. If you're going to use lore in your description, then you should probably work it into the mechanics to some degree, in my opinion. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[Prickly]

I would like to know what they plan to do (if anything) with D&D campaign settings that have different lore for monsters. Eberron for instance.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

As long as the designers manage to keep mechanical and fluff-stuff separate, both conceptually and layout-wise, there's not much to complain about it.

But how will they handle two-way connection? Let's say the Graz'zt entry mentions Lamias and Jackalweres and vice versa. But the new dominic servitor race, the Kackalweres, in next year's monster book? If they are akin to Jackalweres (two levels down from Graz'zt) they might demand a new boss-race as well, let's call them Mamia. Of course Old Graz'zt should be informed about the Mamia, shouldn't he? So it's either update the Graz'zt entry in some way or accept that the interconnections between monsters are not reliable.

Oh well, there are much more pressing issues with monster design I guess...

 

[howandwhy99]

D&D has never been about providing a good story, but rather providing a good game. Games have the potential to result in boring episodes, like in lopsided successes or wins. Stories always have the timer on the bomb defused with 2 seconds left to go. This column simply supports how backward thinking the current designers have become in their obsession with "roleplaying as story creation".

What is a potential positive, which I don't believe is being said, is all the "fluff" material which will be provided in the game books might be possible to converted into playable game material via mechanics which actually support such. But there is no news about an alignment system, morale and loyalty system, rumor system, knowledge system, or even personality modifiers to such. That anything like those mechanics won't actually be provided by Wizards is a shame, but that's the game we're getting.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] I agree with you about incorporating story ("fluff") into a monster's stat block. For example, fey having a vulnerability to cold iron. The problem arises when there's backstory that is uninspired and forced like I felt the writeup on jackalweres was.

Taking a cue from the 4th Edition Monster Vault and the 2nd Edition Monstrous Compendium, we're providing more information on each monster's personality, ecology, goals, and place in the world. More importantly, we're drawing links between different monsters. For instance, we expanded on hags to make them monstrous fey with a whole network of other creatures that serve or ally with them. They create animated scarecrows, use a horrid curse to turn those who betray them into redcaps, and hire mercenary yugoloths when dealing with truly formidable enemies.

I was with him here - the 2e MM and 4e MV are great monster books! The twist with redcaps being transmogrified hag's curse victims is good, and the scarecrow and yugoloth connections are already established hag lore IIRC. And the idea of creating logical connections betweens monsters is appealing.

But then...

Beguilers and Liars. The demon lord Graz'zt created the jackalweres to serve his devoted servants, the lamias. Reaching out from the Abyss, he bestowed jackals with the gift of speech and the ability to assume humanoid forms. A jackalwere is born to lie, and perceptive creatures might notice it wincing in pain when it speaks the truth. Though it can hold its own in combat, it prefers to fight alongside jackals and others of its kind. A pack led by a jackalwere will flee from tough opponents, only to circle back to attack from ambush or murder foes in their sleep.

This just doesn't do anything for me. It looks like more examples of the needless lore changes that happened in 4e. Maybe it's part of some larger compelling story that we aren't privy to, but it just feels like Graz'zt is getting tacked on. And the lamia - jackalwere connection is what? They can both mimic human sounds so they must be related or serve the same master?

I get that it helps with encounter building as a DM to go, "OK, the PCs are going up against a Cult of Graz'zt, so that means 6-fingers cultists, cambions, lamia, and jackalweres."

But the whole "made by a (insert powerful creature here)" thing in 4e was just terribly overdone; I really hope that monster lore in D&D Next can stand on its own two feet without having to invoke demon lords, gods, primordials, or whatever.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This just doesn't do anything for me. It looks like more examples of the needless lore changes that happened in 4e. Maybe it's part of some larger compelling story that we aren't privy to, but it just feels like Graz'zt is getting tacked on. And the lamia - jackalwere connection is what? They can both mimic human sounds so they must be related or serve the same master?

I get that it helps with encounter building as a DM to go, "OK, the PCs are going up against a Cult of Graz'zt, so that means 6-fingers cultists, cambions, lamia, and jackalweres."

I'm fairly certain this is the key reason they are doing this. For a lot of DMs, especially new DMs, it's easy to look at a monster and say "Ok, so it's a Sphinx...it's a lion with a human head...but...well, what do I use it for? When would it likely appear?"

This becomes especially bad for some of the really obscure monsters. I prefer connections between monsters thematically. Even if that theme didn't exist before. The connection between lamia and jackelwere is that they are both creations of Graz'zt now. They didn't have a connection before but now there's a reason to use them together. It makes them feel like they are part of something bigger now. Before they were two random weird creatures....now they are part of Graz'zt's family. You know where they came from.

 

[delericho]

As long as they're easy to change, I don't really care what lore they tie to the changes.