D&D (2024) The future of edition changes and revisions

[Micah Sweet]

But, this whole goblin thing really does sort of line up with what I said before.

Does anyone actually care about the origins of monsters? I mean, sure, you might like to read about it or whatnot, but, does anyone actually care? Are goblins suddenly not usable in Lost Mines of Phandelver because now they have a Fae origin? Does anyone have to rewrite the module in any way, shape or form? Would I suddenly need to rewrite Caves of Chaos because goblins are, many, many generations ago, descended from Fae?

This is my point about tempest in a teacup. Frankly, who cares? It's not going to make the slightest difference in anyone's game. You can run exactly the same modules, in exactly the same way before and after. It's just a nifty bit of flavor text that might lead to more stuff down the line. I imagine that if they release new modules featuring goblins, they might play up the Fae aspect. But, again, there's a million different ways to do that.

It's really funny to me. Paizo completely rewrites goblins and gets nothing but a huge pat on the back for it. WotC does far, far less to change goblins and they are abandoning fans.

If no one cares, you really have to wonder why they decided to do it then.

 

[Parmandur]

If no one cares, you really have to wonder why they decided to do it then.

Because the amount of people whogo "oh, neat, I can work with that" outnumbered anyone bothered by the change, and probably by a lot.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The number of people I've seen praise A5E that has orcs driven by passion, celestial tieflings, halflings with claws and a burrowing speed, and so many more things (it's a really creative take on a lot of fantasy races, highly recommend even if you don't want all that crunch) and simultaneously be mad at floating ASIs and adjustments to monster lore is higher than expected, I'm similarly perplexed. Is it just because it's made by the site and gets a pass on Old Guard sensibilities because it's an in-crowd product?

Is it because they're just ignoring the lore for the crunch they want, which is the exact thing they could be doing with WotC product but aren't because... reasons?

Speaking for myself, there are two reasons:

1. A5e doesn't actually have floating ASIs, they're determined by your background, and the in-born traits of your heritage are provided for in that part of the origin far better than WorC ever did.

2. A5e isn't a setting, with its own lore (it has settings, but it isn't one in and of itself). The D&D multiverse is a setting unto itself, and the lore WotC is changing is replacing existing lore. They are changing the story,, which is what i cared about. Every weird option in A5e for a given heritage is just that, an option, and called out as such.

 

[JEB]

Lots of legacy media has been facing this problem. Even Paizo has been tackling this. Everyone is finding where the path will go next. Will mistakes be made? Absolutely.

As an example: Wizards eliminating alignment entirely early in 2021 (and obviously in a hurry, if you look at Candlekeep), but rethinking that decision and restoring it - with more obvious nuances - by the end of the year. It's a work in progress.

 

[JEB]

Does anyone actually care about the origins of monsters?

Yes, clearly. (Especially when origin lore gets reflected in game mechanics.)

 

[Campbell]

Not sure how anyone sees a throughline between First Edition and Second Edition lore. Second Edition made Lolth into a goddess rather than a Demon Lord, completely changed the nature of fiends, dramatically changed how demon lords and gods were handled and moved the Forgotten Realms to the forefront over Greyhawk.

 

[JEB]

Not sure how anyone sees a throughline between First Edition and Second Edition lore. Second Edition made Lolth into a goddess rather than a Demon Lord, completely changed the nature of fiends, dramatically changed how demon lords and gods were handled and moved the Forgotten Realms to the forefront over Greyhawk.

Compare the descriptive text in the 1E monster books and the original Monstrous Compendiums, for starters; way more similarities than differences, and outright reprinting at times. Nearly all differences between 1E and 2E lore are explained within 2E (for example, the status of Orcus is explained within Dead Gods), or simply represent expansion (or rules differences) rather than contradiction (such as the addition of the crystal spheres in Spelljammer, or the renaming of the Outer Planes and their creatures). They also had adventures that specifically transitioned the Realms and Greyhawk to the 2E ruleset, and continued the histories of both settings plus Dragonlance unbroken into 2E. There's no indication they were intended to be treated as separate lines of lore, and many, many indications that they were the same.

Now, AD&D and Basic D&D, those had more lore differences (particularly at the cosmology level).

 

[Hussar]

Yes, clearly. (Especially when origin lore gets reflected in game mechanics.)

See, you say "clearly" here. But, again, 5e rewrote virtually every single origin of every single monster in the Monster Manual. So much got rewritten. And no one cares.

What mechanics are we talking about here? After all, 2e to 3e suddenly changed the fact that you no longer had a "goblin" as a monster. A goblin is a Warrior NPC class. A goblin is identical to a human warrior, mechanically. Which is identical to an orc or a hobgoblin. Mechanically, they were all exactly the same. About the only difference was a couple of HP.

Now, with Fae origin, goblins are harder to charm? So, this is considered a serious change? Why? It's far, far less of a change mechanically than what we had going from 2e to 3e. Heck, what was a 2e goblin's Strength score? Oh, right, they didn't have one.

So, no, I would say that it isn't clear at all. This is a change that in no way impacts anything. You can run exactly the same adventures and, frankly, it will never, EVER come up in your game unless you want it to.

 

[Hussar]

Compare the descriptive text in the 1E monster books and the original Monstrous Compendiums, for starters; way more similarities than differences, and outright reprinting at times. Nearly all differences between 1E and 2E lore are explained within 2E (for example, the status of Orcus is explained within Dead Gods), or simply represent expansion (or rules differences) rather than contradiction (such as the addition of the crystal spheres in Spelljammer, or the renaming of the Outer Planes and their creatures). They also had adventures that specifically transitioned the Realms and Greyhawk to the 2E ruleset, and continued the histories of both settings plus Dragonlance unbroken into 2E. There's no indication they were intended to be treated as separate lines of lore, and many, many indications that they were the same.

Now, AD&D and Basic D&D, those had more lore differences (particularly at the cosmology level).

But... you've just gotten told that this wasn't true by someone who has spent a considerable amount of time demonstrating that this isn't true.

 

[JEB]

See, you say "clearly" here. But, again, 5e rewrote virtually every single origin of every single monster in the Monster Manual. So much got rewritten. And no one cares.

You asked if anyone cares. Yes, some people care. Read upthread, or the many other threads where the changes get debated. You can nitpick their reasons for caring, but the differences do matter to some people.

Also, people have complained about changes to the monster lore in the 5E Monster Manual as well (gnolls, most notably).