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

[Micah Sweet]

You may hate to hear this, but setting books aren't meant to be read like novels. They're meant to provide background information for players and GMs. You may like reading them as novels, but you're "using them wrong," so to speak.

And since many people no longer seem to care about or even want meta-plots in their game settings, there's no reason to for companies to continue being beholden to them--which means freedom for the writers (and players) to go off in other, potentially more interesting directions.

Ravenloft. You may think it was just an addition when it went from one adventure location to an entire setting, but that was actually a huge change--it altered everything about the setting, including Barovia. When it went from a bunch of domains to a more unified whole, with trade and relations between countries--back in the middle of 2e, with Domains of Dread--that was a huge change, because it altered how the setting was actually meant to be played. When the Van Richten Guides came out, this was another huge change, because again, it altered how you were meant to play the game. You may not think so, because you read the game books like novels, but the actual games? Huge change. It "invalidated" earlier methods of play, because it was no longer a "Weekend in Hell" setting, no longer a setting where the monsters were just monsters.

You bring up the Blood War. Yes, that--and changes made in other editions--does change demons considerably from 1e. They went from "free range" monsters who may or may not have been browbeaten into service by a demon lore to troops in a war, which alters what passes for demon society considerably. In 1e, they were specifically created out of the souls of chaotic evil dead (as per the entry on manes). In 4e, demons are (IIRC) corrupted elementals and/or born or created directly out of evil. That's a huge difference in them.

Planescape "invalidated" earlier gameplay by putting the emphasis on Law and Chaos instead of on Good and Evil.

Even minor bits of lore--like 5e deciding harpies were the descendants of cursed elves--"invalidates" previous lore by deciding that this is how harpies are now.

Call me delusional, but like I said, if it doesn't change history it simply is not a big change as far as I'm concerned. That's what matters to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Heh--just last Friday, one of the other players went on a rant about how they stopped watching the MCU after Ultron because they had brought in Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver but not Magneto. They cut their rant short so we could get back to the game (a Marvel supers game, mutant heavy, so at least it was on-topic), so I have no idea how they felt about switching Ultron's creator from Pym to Stark.

(I was kind of rolling my eyes internally, since I'm not an X-Man fan and don't care about Magneto. But then I reminded myself I'm still annoyed about how the Good Omens show did my boy Aziraphale dirty so it's not like I had room to talk.)

The MCu is a different universe (a bunch of different universes, actually) from the comic 616 reality, so that never bothered me. Because there was an in-setting explanation.

Seriously, that's all I ask.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I haven't used a published setting since 87.

Created my own in 88 and haven't looked back since.

But I understand your point, and I do enjoy some established lore, and use it.

I don't game with published settings either, but I read and enjoyed them as stories and detailed settings for nearly 30 years, until WotC decided to dump them in a big pile and pull out what they wanted for random adventure paths and anthologies.

 

[Faolyn]

Call me delusional, but like I said, if it doesn't change history it simply is not a big change as far as I'm concerned. That's what matters to me.

But all those things--adding the Blood War, changing monster origins, heck, even something as minor as deciding that it's official canon that orcs worship Gruumsh--change history. They change the way the whatever it is was originally presented, and it changes the way that people use them in their home games.

For Ravenloft, we already know that the world is mutable, that domains come and go, that even most of what people think of as history is false. The only difference between VRGtR and, say, the big upheaval they did in the middle of 2e is that they didn't do a series of adventures leading up to it. Or when they decided to kill or trap Van Richten in the Bleak House adventure. Those things affected every single table who played Ravenloft even if they didn't buy the adventures, because every subsequent sourcebook dealt with them.

Or the Faction War in Planescape. Twenty-five years later and I still hear people talking about how much it wrecked the setting.

This is why meta-plots can be a very bad thing, and why I don't care if they're ignored in new books.

And sure, that might not matter for you--so go write your own sourcebooks that ignore them. Or fanfic.

 

[Faolyn]

it’s not one attack though, the green dragon now does three rend attacks instead of two claw and one bite, I am not seeing a savings here

Are you saying you roll once and use that result for all three attacks rather than rolling three individual attacks?

I could just use average damage -5 + 1d10 to speed things up too and still keep claw and bite distinct. If that is the reason, I’d rather see them go in that direction

Ah, I hadn't realized that. For a non-dragon kind of creature, though, it probably doesn't make much sense.

Although personally, I don't have a problem with the name "rend." It often seemed very arbitrary that we're OK with a creature making three attacks in six seconds, but for some reason we also limit it to two claws and one bite. I've been play-attacked by cats, and they can make a lot more than two bap attacks or bunny kicks in six seconds. If a dragon wants to forego biting to claw the heck out of a target, or to make multiple quick bites, I don't see why not.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

But all those things--adding the Blood War, changing monster origins, heck, even something as minor as deciding that it's official canon that orcs worship Gruumsh--change history. They change the way the whatever it is was originally presented, and it changes the way that people use them in their home games.

For Ravenloft, we already know that the world is mutable, that domains come and go, that even most of what people think of as history is false. The only difference between VRGtR and, say, the big upheaval they did in the middle of 2e is that they didn't do a series of adventures leading up to it. Or when they decided to kill or trap Van Richten in the Bleak House adventure. Those things affected every single table who played Ravenloft even if they didn't buy the adventures, because every subsequent sourcebook dealt with them.

Or the Faction War in Planescape. Twenty-five years later and I still hear people talking about how much it wrecked the setting.

This is why meta-plots can be a very bad thing, and why I don't care if they're ignored in new books.

And sure, that might not matter for you--so go write your own sourcebooks that ignore them. Or fanfic.

The changing of official lore means next to nothing for any campaign. If there is a lore change that a gaming group doesn't like, they already have their established lore that they can and should stick with. Your campaign history is what you want it to be. It does not affect any table outside of the unreasonable expectation that lore never changes.

The old books with older lore are still available if desired, like on DM's Guild if you don't already have your own copies.

For example, my D&D campaign setting does not have Slaad. Like at all. An epic PC was able to erase them out of existence (which was pretty awesome). Changes in slaad lore do not mean they appear in my campaign.

Another example, "Gruumsh" isn't a thing in my world. My world has 2 types of orcs, even before the 2024 rules changed them. One are the pig-faced monstrous orcs, and the other are the "hotter" orcs, that the 2024 book better represents. They each have their own origin (transplanar in nature), but use the same stats. They differ in culture and society.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I never said it was because they were classic low level enemies.

At what point in me quoting Paramandur, and referencing an unnamed poster's point, did I ever claim you did say that? Never. So, congratulations on your strawman.

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?

They made the change years ago, so getting irritated at it now is kind of silly.

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

I think Fey has been criminally under-used for decades, so this actually reads like a rebalance to me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

So if you want to prove they aren't nonsensical, you would need to prove that their empires and coding as legionaire forces came afterwards. Good luck and I look forward to your findings.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I always feel that I have to make up my own, because even just "claw / claw / bite" always felt... MEH to me. Old School Essentials and Mork Borg let me kind of improvise my own stuff but still.

I'm definitely open to some other options. Read a post (maybe from here? Or on Reddit?) where someone used 3 different stat blocks to make up the various major "parts" of a huge monster. Defeat one part, those attacks are neutralized. Stuff like that's appealing to me, even if it is a bit video-gamey. As long as it is easy to manage.

And that last line is the balancing act. Sure, doubling the size of a boss monster's statblock might give it all the options if could desire... but then would crowd out other things in the book, and become unwieldy and hard to use. There was mention from @dave2008 that not all DMs are skilled enough to improvise attacks and effects, but I will also say not all new DMs are skilled enough to handle a statblock with two dozen different widgets to keep track of.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

They may not think to... but it is also a dog. This is like saying that a DM might not play a Priest as being knowledgeable about religion and sacred artifacts because they don't have an ability called "Sacred Knowledge". Some things are just inherent in the very idea of the thing.

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?

Maybe. Would be interesting at least.