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

[Remathilis]

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.

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. An official 3.5 D&D reimagining of I6 that changed huge swaths of the lore. It absolutely ignores everything in the 2e setting and reverts it back to the 1e "Castle setting" devoid of Mists and Powers.

Want a different example? Tiamat. She went from Lord of Avenus to deity chilling in Baator to prisoner of Asmodeus. Sometimes she's Takhisis, other times she's not. Sometimes she's a full goddess, other times a powerful dragon. Then again, Orcus, Asmodeus and Lolth are all sometimes deities, sometimes powerful fiends, and sometimes dead.

D&D lore has the consistency and purity of a random harlot table. Most media properties that are 40 years old or older do. Holding them to a standard of consistency in their lore is a fools errand.

 

[SkidAce]

Consider the dog or other creature missing "Keen Senses" i.e .smell.

A DM may not notice that the dog has a +5 (example) instead of a "normal" +3. Its just a number after all.

So they dont narrate or play the dog as having enhanced senses, they just might not think to.

The keen senses trait is an enabler, with it can be said "Yes the dog detected you, you were upwind". An npc might have the same bonus as the dog, should I roleplay them as smelling creatures as effectively as a dog?

This is just an example, and the problem is not huge, I just feel that some aspects of narrative are being lost by removing, lets say, classic traits.

BL: Changing the numbers to represent traits without listing the traits could cause some DMs/Players to not use them in the narrative.




P.S. Can a cat see in the dark? Trait or plus to Perception?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What are you talking about? Are you trying to argue against lore?

Yes. Against canon lore anyway. The only lore that matters is the lore in your own game. Presenting lore as suggestions, rather than some sort of Truth, is at least a start to drawing a little of the hate from the internet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. Against canon lore anyway. The only lore that matters is the lore in your own game. Presenting lore as suggestions, rather than some sort of Truth, is at least a start to drawing a little of the hate from the internet.

Sorry, I much prefer history, fictional or otherwise, and you can't have that unless something exists outside of your own table.

 

[abirdcall]

I think WotC are doing all they can to make the monsters easier to play more effectively and dynamically.

There are limits though where we will see the same complaints and problems.

We're going to see the Strahd problem for high level encounters. Even with many pages to describe Strahd's tactics people still had him do straight up fights with PCs and get torn apart.

Reading through the Ancient Green Dragon thread people focused on their dmg/rd. and defenses.

The spell list and description of their tactics is what is terrifying.

Charm Monster at will (2 targets). It lasts 1 hour without concentration, the dragon will have lots of loyal monsters around to help it fight the PCs.

Geas (30 days) and modify memory means the dragon will have agents working towards its ends that don't even know they are doing so.

This will take a lot of work for the DM to incorporate just how thoroughly the dragon has amassed power and influence over the centuries, but then that is high level play.

In combat it can trigger 8 charm saves per round. The party better find out how to have charm immunity before taking the dragon on. Even with adv. DC 21 is going to be tough to consistently resist.

To me, that is an epic encounter worthy of an ancient dragon.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry, I much prefer history, fictional or otherwise, and you can't have that unless something exists outside of your own table.

Of course you can. But that history is limited to that table. And in essence, to a certain degree it is always like this. Even if you used a published setting, each table is its own "parallel reality version" of that setting.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sorry, I much prefer history, fictional or otherwise, and you can't have that unless something exists outside of your own table.

Fiction, by definition, does not exist, either outside or inside your own table.

If you like history, studying the real thing would be more productive. There may be some truth to be found there, even if getting to it is difficult.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course you can. But that history is limited to that table. And in essence, to a certain degree it is always like this. Even if you used a published setting, each table is its own "parallel reality version" of that setting.

With a published setting as a baseline. That's my point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fiction, by definition, does not exist, either outside or inside your own table.

If you like history, studying the real thing would be more productive. There may be some truth to be found there, even if getting to it is difficult.

I do study history. I'm a teacher with a history degree. I also prefer to view fiction through a similar lens.

And what does your first statement here even mean? "Isn't real" and "does not exist" are not the same thing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I do study history. I'm a teacher with a history degree. I also prefer to view fiction through a similar lens.

Then you should know that the version we are told is usually a long way from what actually happened.

I’m a scientist by training and occupation. I know that there is no such thing as Truth, only things that we have so far failed to prove to be false.

And what does your first statement here even mean? "Isn't real" and "does not exist" are not the same thing.

Yes they are. Not true, does not exist, fiction, lies are all synonymous.