D&D (2024) Another D&D 2024 Monster Preview: The Kuo-Toa!

Following the ancient green dragon preview, here's a look at another iconic D&D monster from the 2025 Monster Manual!

rBXogkJ.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Actually the only one that even mentions 'servitude' is the Gith. Everything was updated in MotM to 'suffered experiments'.
That's what I thought. Even the bad guys can't be slavers now, or at least no one can ever have been slaves. I suppose all the armies in the setting just kill all their prisoners? That's where most slaves came from historically.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Unless they removed all the lore like that, although I suspect that would be fine with you too.
Do you seriously have to harp about how much you hate current D&D lore in every thread like this? Why is your first reaction to me saying “I like this lore change, I think it fits better,” “I think this sucks, clearly WotC is removing all our precious slavery lore, and I’m sure you like that.”

I love Mind Flayers and Kuo-Toa, but the “captured and experimented on by illithids, turning them evil/crazy” backstory was both overdone and wasn’t worked into the rest of Kuo-Toa lore. I always felt that the Kuo-Toa had more in common with Aboleths than Illithids. In one of my campaigns I made it so the Kuo-Toa’s god magic is what made the Aboleths so powerful in prehistory. I just think this thematic connection fits well.

And, yes, the “Mind Flayer enslavement” backstory is overused. It works well with the Gith, but always felt tacked on to most of the others IMO. And Gith and Duergar in the most recent lore still mention their enslavement by the Illithids, so I wouldn’t make a mountain out of a molehill before we see the rest of the Illithids slave lore.
 






I noticed that the “usually” is gone from both monsters’ alignments again. Though, I guess neither has the humanoid creature type, so that seems to be the line they’re drawing for who it’s ok to define as always evil.
It's possible they magnified the existing advice from 2014 that the listed alignment is a default, not a requirement, and didn't think they needed the "usually" reminder. (Though I would have kept it, pretty harmless include IMHO.) But based on other design trends going into 2024, suspect you're right that they took the easy way out, and made it type-dependent.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top