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

[Faolyn]

But if you are using old lore there is a magnitude more of it that's available on DM's Guild than will be published at all by WotC. So why look to WotC as opposed to buying the old lore you want from there

On top of that in order to keep lore 100% consistent they would have to reprint what's already available... including any questionable material they way want to rework (looking at you original Vistani). I can already hear the cries of scam and repackaging from the fan base.

Lastly there's no way everything WotC publishes lore wise is going to match or slot in perfectly with your own lore... even if it stays consistent, eventually some add on will contradict or not be to your liking.

This is true--but as I said, it kind of sucks for people who don't like the new lore but who still want new stuff.

For the most part, it's probably not a big deal. That a monster has a different origin now (such as harpies having been cursed elves) isn't a big thing. But people were talking about how goblins now being fey (a change I like) means they won't be subjected to charm person anymore. And as I said, this is going to be reflected in future products.

I mean, for me, the lore changes don't matter because I always pick and choose what I want, whether making my own setting or using an existing one. I make radical changes in even my favorite settings; like, if I were to run Planescape, I'd have by own planes and gods and everything and probably only keep the gate towns and Sigil (mostly) the same. But someone on this thread a while back even said that it would wreck things if, in the middle of a campaign, goblins were suddenly no longer able to be charmed (although as fey they can be repulsed by protection from evil and good, unless that spell was altered, so maybe it evens out). I have to imagine that there are other players out there who think the same thing--that they must use the new monster typing and accompanying lore right away.

 

[Faolyn]

Putting in the work to make Curse of Strahd align with your tastes . . . is cool, if that's what you want to do . . . but all of that work was optional and isn't really a good argument for WotC keeping lore in a straightjacket as the game evolves over time.

To me, the work you described sounds fun! Diving into older versions of a classic module, looking for the differences, and picking-and-choosing what I want to bring forward into my home campaign. If that doesn't sound fun, that's okay, but then . . . don't do it! Use the adventure as is, or just modify it on the fly.

Actually, I'm against meta-plots, so I'm definitely not wanting WotC (or any other company) keeping lore the same. It's why I could never really get into oWoD--by the time I had the money to buy the books, there was just too much information spread over way too many sources, so I didn't bother.

I'm arguing... honestly, I'm not sure anymore. Both keeping the lore (and mechanics) and changing them can have Bad Effects. Maybe D&D (and other games, even) should move to a more Eberron-like model, where it's always Now, and sourcebooks just describe new areas and things. Then they can come up with "what ifs" for GMs. "This area has a dragon overlord. What if the PCs fight/kill/negotiate/enslave it?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, my hope is things like that are included in the description.

I don't know why you would classify it as a hope. They have had descriptions of the monster and their lore in the Monster Manual for decades. This (to me) is like saying you hope Coca-Cola makes Diet Coke next year. Is there any reason to suspect they won't?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think I've been busy.


Kind of surprised they only moved the Berserker's trait into the attack and didn't change any other stats and cultist lost their advantage. Guess they still matched the targets close enough not to change.

The Berserker is actually a pretty substantial change. Yes, they get advantage against anyone who has lost hp, but they no longer grant advantage. This effectively increases their AC by a significant amount. The cultist meanwhile gained proficiency in wisdom saves I believe it was? Which again, similar to the advantage, but more broadly applicable.

Not sure about magical weapons not getting around the resistances with the Fire Elemental, seems like an unnecessary nerf to martial characters. Although I suppose a lot of spells do acid, cold or fire. Then we get the gray ooze, which no longer damages non magical weapons. Guess they're really doubling down on not needing magic items.

I think the potential nerf of not bypassing the resistance is balanced by the Fire Elemental no longer punishing being hit in melee. Previously an action surge from a dual-wielding fighter could see them taking 5d10 unavoidable damage, now it is just the d10 from the aura

 

[Chaosmancer]

That is true, but I do think an end game type boss monster is one of the places you could accept more complexity and assume some a higher level of DM mastery. I mean we have had claw/claw/bite for about 5 decades and DMs have made it work!

Maybe, but I think they DO have complexity with how the special abilities trigger and their spells.

Plus, I have never found "but it worked fine" to be a good reason to not seek improvement.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Fair enough. I know this sounds hypocritical, but all of these are easy enough for me to ignore, as none of them have any effect whatsoever beyond their respective products.

Considering this is, what? The sixth or seventh example of changed lore that your response to has been "Oh, well that was fine because I could just ignore it" I'm really struggling to understand why you are so adamant about lore not changing. Because I don't think a single example pre-4e has been something you had any issue with.

 

[dave2008]

Maybe, but I think they DO have complexity with how the special abilities trigger and their spells.

Plus, I have never found "but it worked fine" to be a good reason to not seek improvement.

Agreed, but the improvement IMO is to improve the claw/claw/bite attacks. Here is a snip of a green dragon I am working on for project about Tiamat. I am still making adjustments, but the claw, bit, and tail all do different things as well as having vastly different reaches. There will as be certain synergies between these effects and other options the dragon has.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have to imagine that there are other players out there who think the same thing--that they must use the new monster typing and accompanying lore right away.

I can understand that as an intellectual concern, but it also rings a bit... off to me. Those people are self-inflicting the problem onto themselves, and so it is a little hard to feel bad for them when they do it to themselves.

But I do agree that it can be frustrating and challenging to have the lore change. That said, it can also be frustrating and challenging to have the lore NOT change. So it is really a matter of which is the worse poison. And for a group that really struggles to make their own stuff, improving old lore is a good thing for them. So I'm generally more pro-change.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't know why you would classify it as a hope. They have had descriptions of the monster and their lore in the Monster Manual for decades. This (to me) is like saying you hope Coca-Cola makes Diet Coke next year. Is there any reason to suspect they won't?

If they remove say, keen senses, from a stat block, there is a possibility that its not included in the lore or description of a creature. (which we have seen changes in for decades)

I hope that they do keep it in.

Not the same thing as your example with coke,

 

[dave2008]

If they remove say, keen senses, from a stat block, there is a possibility that its not included in the lore or description of a creature. (which we have seen changes in for decades)

I hope that they do keep it in.

Not the same thing as your example with coke,

I am unclear what you are hoping for? Are you interpreting the removal of Keen Sight and Smell as a loss in lore from the statblock that you hope is included in the general lore of the monster or are you worried there will be no lore at all? If the later, all the previews have shown that their will indeed be lore. I do wonder if it will be more or less than what we had in 2014.