D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)

[Faolyn]

Yeah, I caught that too. I'm actually not that weirded out by it, because it sort of fits with old myths about the two. Incubus means "the one who lays above" or something like that, and they are tied with old sleep paralysis demons, which fit the dream spell, ability to cause sleep, and the ability to prevent rest. Sucubus was "the one who lays below" and has usually been tied to the more sexual, temptation side of things

Of course, this means I want to have a Concubus statblock too, just for the giggles, but we can't have everything.

Oh, sure. It's just weird given D&D's previous history with, well, gendered monsters and casual sexism. You see a hot lady-babe out in the wilds, they're almost certainly a monster of some sort. You see a not-so-hot babe, it's a monster, but the players have gotten too wary of hot babes in the wilderness to not try to kill her. That sort of thing.

I'll trust that this isn't a slide backwards to this mentality by the writers, but I still really want to see the flavor text and art.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

I don't care if they make a game I want (I have the games I want), but I do think they should have made a game more different from 2014 than 5.5 turned out to be, and then called it out as a new edition. They could have done whatever they wanted with it. Do you really think that, creatively, 5.5 is the game the WotC designers wanted to make?

Once again, this question is NOT about my personal preference in a game I want to play.

The designers weren't hired to make their own personal game for themselves, they were hired to make a game that the broad range of D&D fans would enjoy. If they want to make their own personal game they can do that in their own time or start their own company.

 

[Imaro]

1e forward to 3.5 used a pretty consistent lore throughline, and OD&D/BX/BECMI were never presented as updated versions of that same game like the above were, and in any case that's a very broad statement. Do you have a specific objection?

I don't object to the statte of the lore at all. I object to your insinuation that the changing of lore started with 5e or iis somehow worse in 5e. It's just you finding another way to get your hate on for 5e. And are you really claiming OD&D wasn't the precursor to AD&D and that BX and BECMI aren't an offshoot of OD&D?

I think instead of "objections" what you want are examples?

Here you go...read through this it details the cosmology changes across different editions... Plane (Dungeons & Dragons) - Wikipedia

Here's another... Ravenloft in 1e is an adventure site in 2e its a demiplane in 4e its part of the shadowfell.

Another... The Eberron cosmology changed between 3e and 4e

Demons & devils between 1e and 2e then blood war being added....

Like I said the writers have never really felt beholden to continuity when it comes to lore... and it's no better or worse in 5e than in previous editions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't care if they make a game I want (I have the games I want), but I do think they should have made a game more different from 2014 than 5.5 turned out to be, and then called it out as a new edition. They could have done whatever they wanted with it. Do you really think that, creatively, 5.5 is the game the WotC designers wanted to make?

Once again, this question is NOT about my personal preference in a game I want to play.

Yes, I think the people behind the design of 5e have made the game they wanted to make. Do you have any evidence other than "well of COURSE they didn't get to make the game they wanted make" to say otherwise? You may as well say "well of COURSE Peter Jackson didn't get to make the movies he wanted to make" because you have the exact same level of evidence for it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

None of the latter are persons.

But they are low-level enemies. So the comment that the change of goblins to fey making them immune to charm person being bad, because they are classic low-level enemies... doesn't seem to apply. Seems like a rather poorly thought out argument.

 

[Chaosmancer]

New settings, or at least expanded setting lore, would fix that issue.

But they can't fix it for the settings which exist and claim these empires exist, but have never shown them, despite showing the world map. Which is the issue. Of course new settings can do new things. That doesn't make old settings better or their lore less nonsensical.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The designers weren't hired to make their own personal game for themselves, they were hired to make a game that the broad range of D&D fans would enjoy. If they want to make their own personal game they can do that in their own time or start their own company.

Many have. Probably a better idea in the long run for hobby if more people did that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Oh, sure. It's just weird given D&D's previous history with, well, gendered monsters and casual sexism. You see a hot lady-babe out in the wilds, they're almost certainly a monster of some sort. You see a not-so-hot babe, it's a monster, but the players have gotten too wary of hot babes in the wilderness to not try to kill her. That sort of thing.

I'll trust that this isn't a slide backwards to this mentality by the writers, but I still really want to see the flavor text and art.

Yeah, completely fair.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't object to the statte of the lore at all. I object to your insinuation that the changing of lore started with 5e or iis somehow worse in 5e. It's just you finding another way to get your hate on for 5e. And are you really claiming OD&D wasn't the precursor to AD&D and that BX and BECMI aren't an offshoot of OD&D?

I think instead of "objections" what you want are examples?

Here you go...read through this it details the cosmology changes across different editions... Plane (Dungeons & Dragons) - Wikipedia

Here's another... Ravenloft in 1e is an adventure site in 2e its a demiplane in 4e its part of the shadowfell.

Another... The Eberron cosmology changed between 3e and 4e

Demons & devils between 1e and 2e then blood war being added....

Like I said the writers have never really felt beholden to continuity when it comes to lore... and it's no better or worse in 5e than in previous editions.

Actually in general 4e caused much bigger lore shifts than anything before or since.

Let's look at Ravenloft. Prior to VRGtR, did any of the things you mentioned invalidate pre-existing lore for that setting? Did history not happen? Just in 4e, and even there it doesn't change the actual domains of the setting, just where they decided to drop them.

VRGtR, however, changed the practical nature of the setting in a way that no other supplement had. It became a different place.

Another example: does presenting the Blood War in 2e invalidate anything about demons and devils in 1e? Did history not happen? Not that I can see.

Can't speak to Eberron (never got into it), but my understanding is that the history of the setting remained frozen at the same spot from 3e to now, and none of the setting details in the world changed, rather more detail has been added over the years.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they are low-level enemies. So the comment that the change of goblins to fey making them immune to charm person being bad, because they are classic low-level enemies... doesn't seem to apply. Seems like a rather poorly thought out argument.

I never said it was because they were classic low level enemies. Their level is a good reason why Charm Monster isn't an adequate substitute, but my reason for irritation at the type change is simply that they were humanoids formerly affected by it, and it affects existing lore and play. Why change something like that in the middle of an edition?

I also think fey is overused in official D&D nowadays, but that's a separate issue.