D&D 5E Do you think they will go back to driders being a curse instead of a blessing?

[Obryn]

Impact for my home campaign: zero.

It will make literally no difference to me one way or the other. With mutable fluff, I can't see how it makes a difference in anyone's game, honestly.

 

[Hussar]

Impact for my home campaign: zero.

It will make literally no difference to me one way or the other. With mutable fluff, I can't see how it makes a difference in anyone's game, honestly.

To a home game? No, probably no difference at all. But to anyone looking to get published Dungeon, or wanting to buy or produce sourcebooks related to Lolth or Driders? Huge difference. As soon as you enshrine setting specific flavour in the core books, you cannot contradict it in later material.

I mean, good grief, look at the hue and cry when they did a few experiments to try to rebuild things like slaad or modrons. And that stuff wasn't even in the bloody core.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Changing long time fluff is either a "hit" or a "natural 1". Trying to correct that critical fumble is a nightmare. That's why it really should be left alone.

 

[The Human Target]

Weirdly, it seems like it was a hit for plenty of people, a miss for the rest, but no one cares much.

Call it a hit on a miss.

 

[SkidAce]

Everyone who likes the FR lore wants driders to be cursed only. Those of us who don't care are good with both versions.

You are incorrect. I want it as a curse only and my Lolth is a demon not associated with FR.

 

[Hussar]

Changing long time fluff ia either a "hit" or a "natural 1". Trying to correct that critical fumble is a nightmare. That's why it really should be left alone.

Meh, changing the flavour text on a very niche monster should never raise the angst that it does. Unfortunately, people insist that any pre-existing canon must be absolutely adhered to, no matter what and regardless of the quality of the new flavour text.

If they were changing orcs, or goblins, I could understand the ire. Then again, the ire will only happen if WOTC does it. If anyone else were to change an iconic monster like a goblin *cough*Paizo*cough* then they would be lauded for how creative and innovative they are. When WOTC does it, it's change for change's sake and a total money grab and poorly written to boot.

 

[billd91]

Meh, changing the flavour text on a very niche monster should never raise the angst that it does. Unfortunately, people insist that any pre-existing canon must be absolutely adhered to, no matter what and regardless of the quality of the new flavour text.

If they were changing orcs, or goblins, I could understand the ire. Then again, the ire will only happen if WOTC does it. If anyone else were to change an iconic monster like a goblin *cough*Paizo*cough* then they would be lauded for how creative and innovative they are. When WOTC does it, it's change for change's sake and a total money grab and poorly written to boot.

WotC does have the official mantle of D&D to carry. Paizo doesn't. The baggage is substantially different.

 

[Shemeska]

See this? This is the kind of thing I in no way want to see anywhere near a core product. To me Llolth is a demon and always will be. She became a god through her drow cult.

Everything you just said should never appear in a core book. I mean I don't even know what a Seldarine is.

That particular piece of lore appeared in both setting specific and in generic/core material.

The specific legend of Lolth's origin as the goddess Araushnee within the Seldarine (aka the Elven pantheon) originated in FR, but that material was subsequently merged with Greyhawk sourced lore and combined in later sources. 3e overtly treated the FR and Greyhawk lore as pertaining to the same goddess, and for instance 2007's Drow of the Underdark assumes Lolth as originating as a fallen Seldarine goddess who subsequently

And you have my permission to not like me more now Hussar, because later in 2007, Lolth's writeup in the top 20 D&D villains article in Dragon magazine's final (print) issue also referenced Lolth in FR and Greyhawk as the same deity with the same origin among the Seldarine, and subsequently gaining enough power in the Abyss to regain her godhood (though not actually being an abyssal lord). I wrote the Lolth entry in that article.

 

[Shemeska]

If anyone else were to change an iconic monster like a goblin *cough*Paizo*cough* then they would be lauded for how creative and innovative they are. When WOTC does it, it's change for change's sake and a total money grab and poorly written to boot.

Paizo couldn't legally use huge swathes of non-open content D&D lore Hussar. There's changing something because you're unaware of the prior lore, changing it because you think you can create something better, change for the sake of change, or changing it because you have directives to develop brand identity away from prior versions of the game. Some or all of those may have happened at points during WotC's various editions from 1e through 4e, but WotC owns D&D, they have the option to use all of that prior lore.

Paizo doesn't have that option. Period. They had to recreate a lot of iconic things with their own twist on them, because they didn't have legal access to large amounts of prior D&D lore.

For instance Paizo couldn't have included the war between Gruumsh and Maglubiyet and by extension the goblinoids and orcs in Acheron. Lolth and her as the focal point of drow society likewise couldn't be used. A lot of planar material wasn't open content for instance.

 

[Alzrius]

If they go with the latter, now they have to explain what a Seldarine is and then tie into that bit of FR lore.

The term of "the Seldarine" to refer to the Elven pantheon isn't FR-specific. The first use of the term (that I'm aware of) is in the non-campaign-specific 2E book Monster Mythology.