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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Did hobgoblins have empires when those settings were created? If not, they aren't nonsensical.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Hmmm hobgoblins are fey because @thats getting back to their “roots” but not elves because “they are from Tolkien”. ? This is incoherent as a justification. Hobgoblins in D&D are unambiguously from Tolkien people! It’s why D&D preserves the etymological mistake of having them be bigger goblins rather than what the word should mean! There’s nothing inherently fey-ish about D&D goblins and this change is merely the manifestation of WotC’s post 2007 fey-boner.

 

[mamba]

And this wasn't something I was discussing. I've had this discussion, and I disagree because by making the melee attack more consistent, they were able to make the statblock more interesting. A dragon isn't interesting because it can hit you with its tail or bite you, it is interesting because poison seeps from its scales in a miasma and it has powerful magics to cloud your mind.

You do not really have to merge Bite and Claw into Rend to have interesting abilities in addition to them. What it does is save some page space, not enable actions.

You can argue that it saved them some space they could fill with a different ability, but inherently you do not need to remove Bite and Claw to make interesting creatures. I'd prefer they did both.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I think changing an adventure site/castle into a prison demiplane where numerous darklords as well as PC's are imprisoned is a much bigger change of lore than anything above. You're just choosing to ignore that because it doesnt fit your narrative.

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.

Again ignoring the fact that demons and devils were removed from 2e originally and then subsequently renamed. It doesnt have to invalidate previous lore to be a lore change... The blood war was never mentioned in 1e, its a big change that changes fundamental aspects of the cosmologgy.

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.

So you don't have a problem with lore being changed in general (because yeah adding new planes to its cosmologgy is changing Eberron from its previous state)... you have a problem when it's a change you don't like...

 

[dave2008]

There’s nothing inherently fey-ish about D&D goblins and this change is merely the manifestation of WotC’s post 2007 fey-boner.

Better late than never!

 

[dave2008]

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.

Personally I found the addition of the blood war as an attempt to invalidate all the 1e daemon, devil, and demon lore that came previously. It invalidate or significantly altered what those fiends were prior IMO.

 

[Echohawk]

Personally I found the addition of the blood war as an attempt to invalidate all the 1e daemon, devil, and demon lore that came previously. It invalidate or significantly altered what those fiends were prior IMO.

As an avid follower of D&D lore at the time, the introduction of the Blood War in 1991's MC8: Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix felt quite radical to me too. I liked the concept and used it in campaigns from then on, but it didn't feel consistent with how fiends had been presented up to that point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think changing an adventure site/castle into a prison demiplane where numerous darklords as well as PC's are imprisoned is a much bigger change of lore than anything above. You're just choosing to ignore that because it doesnt fit your narrative.



Again ignoring the fact that demons and devils were removed from 2e originally and then subsequently renamed. It doesnt have to invalidate previous lore to be a lore change... The blood war was never mentioned in 1e, its a big change that changes fundamental aspects of the cosmologgy.



So you don't have a problem with lore being changed in general (because yeah adding new planes to its cosmologgy is changing Eberron from its previous state)... you have a problem when it's a change you don't like...

If it doesn't invalidate previous lore (which none of these did in a practical way) then admittedly I care far less about it. This is why the VRGtR thing bothered me do much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Personally I found the addition of the blood war as an attempt to invalidate all the 1e daemon, devil, and demon lore that came previously. It invalidate or significantly altered what those fiends were prior IMO.

I don't see how, but to each their own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As an avid follower of D&D lore at the time, the introduction of the Blood War in 1991's MC8: Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix felt quite radical to me too. I liked the concept and used it in campaigns from then on, but it didn't feel consistent with how fiends had been presented up to that point.

For my part I was just excited to learn more about the Planes.