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

[Micah Sweet]

That's a pretty harsh judgment to make about all those creators who put time into justifying lore changes, both within official D&D and across a wide variety of other long-running media (Marvel Comics being one of the most significant examples). I don't think such creators were being anti-creative at all - what you describe actually sounds very creative, if not to your personal tastes.

Uh huh. @Levistus's_Leviathan , it really sounds like you just dont agree with me (which is fine), but are trying to make that into someone more than personal preference. Your opinion is no more than your opinion. Just like mine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not calling the act of writing metaplots anti-creative. I'm calling the absolutist position that all lore changes must be justified by a metaplot or they're automatically bad uncreative.

In a story (which is how I see the lore of D&D until 4e), if you change the story, there ought to be a reason in-setting why that happened. The problem here is that you and I don't see the body of lore in D&D as the same kind of thing. To you its the setting for your game and anything else is (seemingly) a regrettable side effect of that. To me, it's a more or less continuous story abruptly ended.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. Eberron fans did for Dragonborn. The issue is the quality of the addition. Not whether a metaplot was used to justify it. Because, clearly, a lot of Forgotten Realms fans did not accept the Spellplague and all of its changes, which is why WotC had to walk it back with yet another metaplot in 5e.

Eberron fans are, I have been told, a special group of folks who don't see lore in D&D the same way as fans of other settings. Perhaps because Eberron lore really is just a setting for an RPG (albeit a detailed and cool one), like you want.

 

[JEB]

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"

To add: I think there's also a concern from a design standpoint that removing the stated, concrete reasons for these bonuses makes it harder to reverse engineer and build your own creatures intended to have such traits. At least, harder than it was in 2014 5e.

 

[Echohawk]

Eberron fans are, I have been told, a special group of folks who don't see lore in D&D the same way as fans of other settings. Perhaps because Eberron lore really is just a setting for an RPG (albeit a detailed and cool one), like you want.

Is it that, or that they are fans of a setting which happens to have a static timeline? I think that the nature of lore for a world with a moving timeline is different to lore for a world that doesn't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To add: I think there's also a concern from a design standpoint that removing the stated, concrete reasons for these bonuses makes it harder to reverse engineer and build your own creatures intended to have such traits. At least, harder than it was in 2014 5e.

A reasonable concern. These are the kinds of changes from 5.0 to 5.5 that made me wish they had called out 5.5 as a separate edition, primarily so it would be easier for players and publishers to keep with 5.0 if they wanted.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it that, or that they are fans of a setting which happens to have a static timeline? I think that the nature of lore for a world with a moving timeline is different to lore for a world that doesn't.

Sure, but it's worth noting that Eberron is pretty much the only static timeline setting in official D&D, so it's hard to pinpoint that as the cause of fans' ardour.

 

[Echohawk]

Sure, but it's worth noting that Eberron is pretty much the only static timeline setting in official D&D, so it's hard to pinpoint that as the cause of fans' ardour.​

I was suggesting that the static timeline might be the reason for the fact that Eberron fans "don't see lore in D&D the same way as fans of other settings" (as you put it), rather than simply because it was designed to be an inclusive setting (although that certainly contributes).

If a setting has a timeline that moves, then you can use that to explain changes ("there was recently an interaction with a parallel world and now there are dragonborn").

If a setting has a frozen timeline, you are forced to come up with lore that gives them a plausible place in the existing world ("dragonborn have always lived on another continent and don't get out much").

I think those two approaches (eventually) lead to bodies of lore that have different textures. Eberron is a rich setting. Dragonlance is a setting with a rich history.​

 

[JEB]

These are the kinds of changes from 5.0 to 5.5 that made me wish they had called out 5.5 as a separate edition, primarily so it would be easier for players and publishers to keep with 5.0 if they wanted.

"Invisible" bonuses that the designers know about, but homebrewers don't, would still be a problem if 2024 had been 6e instead of keeping the 5e label. Possibly worse, actually, since at least 5e homebrewers can still look at 2014 books and see the original reason.

(Mind, I think the main reason stuff like Keen Senses became "invisible" was simply to save space; if they intended for the concept to disappear, the effect on the statblock would have as well.)

 

[JEB]

I think those two approaches (eventually) lead to bodies of lore that have different textures. Eberron is a rich setting. Dragonlance is a setting with a rich history.

Not that these approaches are mutually exclusive, of course. A moving timeline can still introduce new ideas by just having them "offstage" until now (such as the aforementioned Blood War in 2e; I also don't recall 3e officially explaining why dwarves on Oerth could suddenly become wizards). And a frozen timeline can still indulge in explanations (Eberron's cosmology being integrated into 5e's larger cosmology, but separate due to the Ring of Siberys).