D&D (2024) Do you think they will add more races to PHB2024 to make up for dropping other stuff?

[dave2008]

I prefer D&D being a game engine that can handle completely different settings.

So keep the core rules of the Players Handbook customizable, broad, openended, and suggestive.

That said. It is important to have a narratively rich setting. So far, there are three core rule books: Players Handbook, DMs Guide, and Monster Manual. There should be a fourth core rulebook, a setting guide.

• Players Handbook: ALL (!) of the rules necessary to play a game of D&D. The only book necessary.
• DMs Guide: running adventures, encounters, variant rules, worldbuilding, magic items, wealth, advice.
• Forgotten Realms Cyclopedia: detail flavors, maps, species, cultures, class organizations, etcetera.
• Forgotten Realms Monster Manual: monster stats with how their ecologies fit into the Realms.

These are the four core rulebooks.

Supplements include Eberron Cyclopedia, Eberron Monster Manual, etcetera.

I like the idea except for the setting specific bestiary being part of the core. I prefer a generic bestiary core with the setting cyclopedia have unique monsters or templates notes about differences to monsters in the core book

 

[Yaarel]

I like the idea except for the setting specific bestiary being part of the core. I prefer a generic bestiary core with the setting cyclopedia have unique monsters or templates notes about differences to monsters in the core book

As a DM, I port monsters from one setting into an other setting without hesitation. Most of the time, the players wont really know the detailed ecology narrative anyway.

If each setting has its own Monster Manual, that is fine with me.

In old school, there is a defacto Greyhawk Monster Manual. But for 5e, the "core" would be the Forgotten Realms Monster Manual.

 

[dave2008]

As a DM, I port monsters from one setting into an other setting without hesitation. Most of the time, the players wont really know the detailed ecology narrative anyway.

If each setting has its own Monster Manual, that is fine with me.

In old school, there is a defacto Greyhawk Monster Manual. But for 5e, the "core" would be the Forgotten Realms Monster Manual.

My point: if you call it a FR bestiary then it should have FR lore. I would rather generic lore not tied to a setting for the MM.

 

[Yaarel]

My point: if you call it a FR bestiary then it should have FR lore.

Yes. I mean exactly that.

As a "core book", the Forgotten Realms Monster Manual will detail the specific Forgotten Realms setting narratives for each monster entry.

This entry is info that only the DM peruses. Like magic items, the DM can decide which monsters exist, and what their lore actually is. So it doesnt really matter if the players read it. The DM might be using different monsters and descriptions anyway.

I would rather generic lore not tied to a setting for the MM.

Perhaps the term "generic" means customizable, broad, openended, and suggestive.

Since the DM has 100% control of the monsters in the same way as having 100% control of the magic items, I dont see a problem with describing each monster in its setting context. We can assume most DMs will be splicing together monsters from various settings.

 

[dave2008]

As a "core book", the Forgotten Realms Monster Manual will detail the specific Forgotten Realms setting narratives for each monster entry.

I don't want a FR bestiary to be a core book. I would rather that info be part of the FR setting book.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't want a FR bestiary to be a core book. I would rather that info be part of the FR setting book.

The idea is that the FR Cyclopedia (≈ Adventurers Guide) is "core".

Likewise the FR Monster Manual is "core".

The benefit is, the Players Handbook itself is customizable, broad, openended, and suggestive.

Meanwhile it becomes easy for a DM to discretely swap out the FR Cyclopedia and the FR MM, and use the Eberron Cyclopedia and the Eberron MM instead. Or swap for any setting including a homebrew setting. The Players Handbook with its game engine works as well as possible with any setting.


I feel this solves the problem of having D&D players who want detailed narratives − thus consult the FR Cyclopedia versus D&D players who want a different setting such as Eberron or homebrew.

 

[dave2008]

The idea is that the FR Cyclopedia (≈ Adventurers Guide) is "core".

Likewise the FR Monster Manual is "core".

I know that is your idea - I don't like it. I have understood your point from the beginning, and I said I didn't like it from the beginning. It wasn't a lack of understanding on my point, I just don't like that part of your idea.

And that is OK. Very few ideas make everyone happy.

 

[Yaarel]

I know that is your idea - I don't like it. I have understood your point from the beginning, and I said I didn't like it from the beginning. It wasn't a lack of understanding on my point, I just don't like that part of your idea.

And that is OK. Very few ideas make everyone happy.

From your view, why do monsters need to be "generic"?

 

[mamba]

From your view, why do monsters need to be "generic"?

they don't, but let's face it, 90% or so will be in all settings, maybe Drow in FR, Draconians in DL and other exclusive ones, but by and large....

 

[Clint_L]

To clarify: we already know that half-elves and half-orcs are out, and orcs and goliaths are in. In fact, we already know all the species in the 2024 PHB.