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

[skinnydwarf]

I'm not a fan of changing existing lore too much because I think it takes away from the D&D world, but for a lot of monsters there was scant lore to begin with. From what I've seen in the various columns, I really like a lot of the new lore they came up with. Even if I don't use it all in my campaign and know I'll change X and Y, I like that there is more meat to the D&D world.

The connections they are making between monsters are especially cool and give the world more depth. It reminds me of how, of course bullette's have a taste for halflings. By showing that two imaginary creatures interact in this way helps make the world feel more real.

 

[Cybit]

FWIW, in practice, they've done a fantastic job of balancing Lore and Mechanics for monsters IMO. The mechanics make "sense" w/ respect to the lore, but they're not so restrictive that they can't have their stories changed easily w/o having to mess with the monster.

Especially when your game has a secret force of super spy penguins.

Best way I can describe 5E is that for a DM, it feels like 4E, for players, it feels like 1E/3.5E.

 

[Dausuul]

This is not a complaint, exactly, but I'd like to see the lore made a bit more flexible. I'd have the connections between monsters be expressed differently depending on which end of the connection you're looking at. Let's take the Graz'zt/lamia/jackalwere nexus:

• Jackalweres: "Jackalweres were created by a demon lord, to be servants for its favored minions. They are often encountered working as trackers and hunters in the service of powerful evil monsters."
• Lamias: "Lamias worship demon lords and are often accompanied by jackalweres who help them track and bring down their prey."
• Graz'zt: "Graz'zt's chosen children are the lamias, and he created the jackalweres to serve them."

Doing it this way has a couple of advantages. First, it means that there's less to remember in terms of which lore applies and which doesn't. If you're using jackalweres, but not lamias or Graz'zt, you don't have to change the jackalwere lore at all--just attach them to a different boss. Likewise, if you're using jackalweres and lamias, removing Graz'zt from the chain does not affect jackalwere or lamia lore. On the other hand, if you do want to use the Graz'zt link as written, it's all laid out for you in Graz'zt's entry.

Second, it encourages gradual revelations. PCs encounter jackalweres, make a lore check, and learn the jackalwere lore. Now they know to be on the lookout for the jackalweres' boss, but they don't yet know who that boss might be. And they know there might be demons involved, but not which demons or what they want. They get hints instead of answers. If they investigate those hints, they can be rewarded with specific details. Even if they don't, the world gains a bit more depth from knowing there's hidden information out there to be found.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I really like that they're adding a lot more specific story details to their monster's descriptions such as personality, ecology, goals, as well as their place in the world. I also like that they draw connecttions to some other monsters as this can help DMs build encounters using other monsters with a more natural fit. If this help provide story hooks and ideas for how DMs can use monsters in their campaign while being easily ignored by others from whom it doesn't jive well with, i think its great!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm all for more monster lore but I wish they would tie in abilities with specific lore.

 

[ambroseji]

I'm quite happy with the approach they are taking with the lore, and I'm glad mechanics are not being directly connecting to the lore. (evil-eye cyclops in 4e drove my nuts).

I know for a fact that I won't be using Graz'zt or most other "proper nouns" in my own games, but I don't mind their presence in the monster descriptions. It's easy enough for me to substitute Graz'zt for Evil Mad Wizard #5 or Big Bad Demon Lord #2, but when I do so I have the [easy] option of connecting a whole family of creatures.

It also seems like these tidbits of lore are fairly modular. We are looking at the entry titled "beguilers and liars" but there are probably one or two other entries for jackalweres. This could allow DMs to easily customize the lore a little bit by choosing which paragraphs of lore to emphasize during the game.

 

[Blackwarder]

I have no problem with having "named" critters in monsters descriptions, being the lazy DM that I am that's a big plus in my book, it saves me the trouble of inventing the wheel all over again like I had to do in the last decade.

I also like the fact that it implies a basic D&D setting like you have in earlier D&D editions, again, being a lazy DM that's a big plus in my book, enough to get the ideas flowing but not to much to strait jacket you into some fixed version.

Warder

 

[Emerikol]

I think good flavorful defaults are the way to go. Personally I don't feel constrained by D&D lore from changing anything any time. I didn't see it as that big of an issue even in 4e. So I think having the fluff but not tying it too tightly to fluff is fine.

The cold iron example.....
You could have cold iron affect a certain creature. That is not fluff. The fluff for why that is true could vary. DMs can change either mechanics or fluff.

It probably comes down to how much. Since when it comes to flavor I am wide open every campaign setting I create it doesn't bother me. I guess for some of you it does because you are more bound to a particular campaign setting and want tradition. I support the default supporting tradition for that reason.

 

[Mistwell]

I like the named creatures in the fluff text. Build the D&D brand, reinforce the D&D brand, this is how D&D grows in strength over time. Release all kinds of other stuff that tie to those same brand names, like board games and movies and books and whatever. This is one of the areas where WOTC has an advantage over all other competition - the brand names they own.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

For some decades now, Githyanki have been sworn enemies of Githzerai, allied with red dragons, followers of a weird lich-queen, created through enslavement by mindflayers, and various other things.

You know what's the difference between githyanki and jackalweres? One race has lore established long ago, while other race is just now beginning to have its own lore. I believe new lore is cool, and it can be as detailed as WotC wants it to be. As long as they keep old lore intact, I believe they should give us more creature lore whenever it's possible to do so.