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

[Micah Sweet]

No it makes it seem like you have a bone to pick with 5e and are trying to justify it after the fact.

I have a bone to pick with VRGtR and WotC current attitude towards the lore they (regrettably IMO) own. I like 5e.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Sorry, I thought i had laid it out, let me try again.

-They replace things like keen senses with a bonus to perception in the statblock.

-Dms may not be aware why the perception is higher.

-DMs that would have noticed keen senses don't play the creature as if it had a special ability.

-If the wording in the lore retains a keen senses description, all is well.

-If the wording in the lore doesn't mention any such trait, then it is lost and no longer a part of that creature.

Therefore I hope all these mechanical simplications don't make traits inherent to the creature "disappear"

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

How much description and lore provided for monsters in the MM has varied significantly over the editions, so keeping it at hope and not certainty seems fair to me.

 

[Xenolith234]

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.

I sort of care too - I grew up reading the Forgotten Realms books, and the canon explanation is something that’s existed the whole time. It’s weird to change the lore for the setting that way. The statblock, however, would be fine, and I think it’s at the very least an interesting change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I didn't like Expedition to Castle Ravenloft either, so I ignored it. At the time, it felt like a one-off, and I still thought there was hope WotC would continue the throughline Arthaus produced in their long 3e run of the setting (which I loved, and which dovetailed nicely from the 2e material). As far as the novels, I read a lot of Star Wars and Star Trek novels too, none of which were considered canon, especially if they were contradict by material onscreen, so I was used to taking novels with a grain of salt and just enjoyed them for what they were when they differed from the game material. Even 4e wasn't a huge problem, because they didn't cover existing setting material, and the Shadowfell thing had little practical effect. VRGtR really was different from my perspective, and if you can't understand why after the many, many times I've explained it I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Imaro]

I have a bone to pick with VRGtR and WotC current attitude towards the lore they (regrettably IMO) own. I like 5e.

While finding multiple reasons to excuse, overlook and/or dismiss the numerous examples of other editions changing lore and showing the same general attitude about it as WotC does now...even if it wasn't stated out right.

 

[JEB]

There is a hint in VRGR that implies that the Dark Powers have destroyed and reset Ravenloft before. The Domain of Khor is full of the crumbling remains of domains that the Dark Lords were killed or escaped as well as alternative versions of domains where things went differently.

In addition to the above, at least one of the designers in VRGTR (the one who worked on Valachan) outright said they'd written their version as a continuation of the original. Plus there are Easter eggs like Dominic d'Honaire's appearance in an asylum in the otherwise very different Dementlieu. Not to mention Azalin's visual cameo in his classic form in Tasha's, as opposed to the remnants of him and his domain in VRGTR. It would have been very easy to present the 5e version of the setting as a transformation of the older setting, caused by some scheme of Azalin's.

(Frankly, considering the above, I wouldn't be surprised if this was exactly the plan at some point in development. Of course, the final product stops with the Easter eggs, and the canon policy released shortly after pretty much confirms it was intended as new-to-5e canon.)

 

[Imaro]

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.

I've come around to being more pro-change for the simple fact that WotC has made all the old lore available via DM's Guild. I have all the 2e Planescape lore... why would I want a reprint of it when I can literally buy the original currently?? I bought 5e Planescape because I wanted a (slightly) different take on the major themes of the setting. If it was just 2e Planescape... but with n different art I probably would have skipped. Thats honestly how I felt about Ebrrron in 5e.

 

[JEB]

While finding multiple reasons to excuse, overlook and/or dismiss the numerous examples of other editions changing lore and showing the same general attitude about it as WotC does now...even if it wasn't stated out right.

There are different levels of lore change - I gather @Micah Sweet is more concerned with reboots (where just about everything is changed, and the original lore becomes largely incompatible) than retcons (where specific bits of lore are changed, but the larger narrative is preserved).

 

[Imaro]

There are different levels of lore change - I gather @Micah Sweet is more concerned with reboots (where just about everything is changed, and the original lore becomes largely incompatible) than retcons (where specific bits of lore are changed, but the larger narrative is preserved).

And yet the change of Castle Ravenloft to the Demiplane of Dread isn't considered a major change. It just all seems a little arbitrary to me.