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

[dave2008]

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

Need is to strong of a word, it is a preference. I can use a setting specific book, but I find they tend to have a lot of stuff I ignore or need to rewrite / rethink / adjust. The less of that the better IMO. Here are few other thoughts:

More monsters: With less setting specific fluff (and therefore less fluff) we can get more monsters. That is a good thing IMO.

More flexibility: Similar to my initial comment, more generic is more flexible without having to put in effort to revise setting info I don't want

More flavor: If the core book is generic, the setting books can be more flavorful. If you are familiar with 4e, it is the difference between the Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale.

Or take alignment. The core book should be flexible, Orcs can be any alignment, but usually chaotic evil (or something similar). However, in a setting book you can straight up say Orcs are neutral evil or whatever.

 

[Corinnguard]

Need is to strong of a word, it is a preference. I can use a setting specific book, but I find they tend to have a lot of stuff I ignore or need to rewrite / rethink / adjust. The less of that the better IMO. Here are few other thoughts:

More monsters: With less setting specific fluff (and therefore less fluff) we can get more monsters. That is a good thing IMO.

More flexibility: Similar to my initial comment, more generic is more flexible without having to put in effort to revise setting info I don't want

More flavor: If the core book is generic, the setting books can be more flavorful. If you are familiar with 4e, it is the difference between the Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale.

Or take alignment. The core book should be flexible, Orcs can be any alignment, but usually chaotic evil (or something similar). However, in a setting book you can straight up say Orcs are neutral evil or whatever.

A world neutral bestiary allows the DM to make more challenging encounters for the players. This is what Pathfinder 1st edition did for it's Six Bestiaries.

 

[Remathilis]

Need is to strong of a word, it is a preference. I can use a setting specific book, but I find they tend to have a lot of stuff I ignore or need to rewrite / rethink / adjust. The less of that the better IMO. Here are few other thoughts:

More monsters: With less setting specific fluff (and therefore less fluff) we can get more monsters. That is a good thing IMO.

More flexibility: Similar to my initial comment, more generic is more flexible without having to put in effort to revise setting info I don't want

More flavor: If the core book is generic, the setting books can be more flavorful. If you are familiar with 4e, it is the difference between the Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale.

Or take alignment. The core book should be flexible, Orcs can be any alignment, but usually chaotic evil (or something similar). However, in a setting book you can straight up say Orcs are neutral evil or whatever.

The problem I see is that we're going to have a half dozen monster tomes that largely reprint the same core monsters (goblins, dragons, giants, vampires, etc) with just slightly variant lore along side of specific monsters for the setting, you'll have unique variations of the same types of monsters (goblin bandit in one, goblin infiltrator in another) or you'll split the monsters around several books (vampire in the Ravenloft MM, giants in the Eberron, drow in the FR). No matter how you slice that, you're buying multiple books either with repetitive info or the core info across multiple books (which was popular during 4e when they split the base classes and monsters over different PHBs and MMs).

No. One core book of basic monsters and let setting books deviate as needed. It's not like D&D settings share 90% of the same monsters anyway. I can't feel bothered that someone is whining "you got Forgotten Realms lore in muh Eberron". It's a game of imagination, pretend it's not there.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

WotC knows thanks surveys lots of DMs would rather to create their own settings using elements from different sources. Then they aren't going to worry too much about what is the canon or the continuity.

And there are serious influences by other franchises. For example orcs aren't so evil thanks/by fault of Warcraft.

 

[Parmandur]

The problem I see is that we're going to have a half dozen monster tomes that largely reprint the same core monsters (goblins, dragons, giants, vampires, etc) with just slightly variant lore along side of specific monsters for the setting, you'll have unique variations of the same types of monsters (goblin bandit in one, goblin infiltrator in another) or you'll split the monsters around several books (vampire in the Ravenloft MM, giants in the Eberron, drow in the FR). No matter how you slice that, you're buying multiple books either with repetitive info or the core info across multiple books (which was popular during 4e when they split the base classes and monsters over different PHBs and MMs).

No. One core book of basic monsters and let setting books deviate as needed. It's not like D&D settings share 90% of the same monsters anyway. I can't feel bothered that someone is whining "you got Forgotten Realms lore in muh Eberron". It's a game of imagination, pretend it's not there.

Yeah, the generic MM isn't going anywhere, and probably not generic follow-ups like Fizban's or Bigby's, either.

 

[Corinnguard]

WotC knows thanks surveys lots of DMs would rather to create their own settings using elements from different sources. Then they aren't going to worry too much about what is the canon or the continuity.

And there are serious influences by other franchises. For example orcs aren't so evil thanks/by fault of Warcraft.

And Eberron with it's fuzzy alignments.

 

[Mistwell]

Nah, Half-Elves are out as a distinct option.

I disagree. We shall see, but I think we're going to see them back in some fashion. Maybe a side-bar or whatever, but I think players will be able to play a half-elf right from the 2024 PHB.

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree. We shall see, but I think we're going to see them back in some fashion. Maybe a side-bar or whatever, but I think players will be able to play a half-elf right from the 2023 PHB.

Yes, the first packet has a sidebar explaining how a half-elf, half-gnome, half-dwarf, semi-halfling, half-orc, half-tiefling, half-dragonborn, half-goliath, and/or half-human in any combination can be played. They might adjust exactly how that looks based on feedback...but it may make it in basically as written there. A distinct "Half-Elf" Species, though? Nope, not happening.

 

[Mistwell]

They have already confirmed that they are out.

No, they have said that's where they were at that moment. Let's see. I would bet it changes again.

 

[Cadence]

And that's the part that's insufficient. It's like throwing everything out about X species, and just saying 'call it whatever but these are your rules'

Wouldn't it finally make the half elves work more like in Tolkien (pick the race of elves or the race of men)? And I'm guessing Tolkien was the big reason to have half-elves and half-orcs.

(Glenn Cook's Garret Files series seems to have half everythings on the other hand).