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

[mamba]

Those aren't mutually exclusive goals, to be fair. Reverse engineering makes it easier to homebrew variants of existing monsters, as much as building a new one from scratch with comparable powers.

if I want a bugbear variant, all I need to do is follow what is there, I do not need to understand how it turned out that way.

If I want to build something new, understanding why monsters are the way they are is helpful. Removing the explanation and just showing the result gets in the way of that

 

[Imaro]

Dark Sun was designed to end. You can still play in whatever era you like.

The same could be said for your attachment to lore... you can play with... sorry, read whatever lore you like, regardless of what WotC and 5e decide to do concerning it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The same could be said for your attachment to lore... you can play with whatever lore you like, regardless of what WotC and 5e decide to do concerning it.

Of course. But as a follower of the story I'd still to see more of it, and I'm sad that's not going to happen, in a similar way I'd be sad if Paramount suddenly announced the end of Star Trek.

 

[Imaro]

Of course. But as a follower of the story I'd still to see more of it, and I'm sad that's not going to happen, in a similar way I'd be sad if Paramount suddenly announced the end of Star Trek.

All stories have an end. It's the structure of a story.

And in using campaign settings for their intended purpose I'd want more gameable material... which destroying the setting ends.

 

[JEB]

if I want a bugbear variant, all I need to do is follow what is there, I do not need to understand how it turned out that way.

Need, no. But it's still helpful (especially if your variant is particularly variant, but you still want to make sure the essential bits are still there).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

There were a ton of retcons in 4e Eberron that did not make it to 5e because the fanbase didn't like them (Baator, trying to organize the Orrery cosmology like the World Axis, anyone being allowed to gain Dragonmarks, etc). There are some retcons that did survive 4e Eberron, because the fanbase did like them (Dragonborn, Feyspires). There have been retcons in 5e that the fanbase embraced because of how cool they are (Daelkyr Dwarves, Warforged Collosi, Cyre 1313 and Dread Metrol). It's not that Eberron fans like retcons. It's that they like good retcons. Which I think I can say is true about most D&D players.

Like, take the new Goliaths. Goliaths up until the new PHB were always connected with specifically stone giants, not any of the other subtypes. But the new version introduces 5 new "subraces," one for each of the main 6 giant types. Which is, you know, a retcon. They changed the race's lore and mechanics without a metaplot justification and people accepted it. Because, guess what, most people think giants are pretty cool and having the option to be descended from/connected to any of the main giant types is just a good improvement to the original goliaths. If the average D&D player was as hostile to retcons as you are, they would never have passed the UA because there wasn't a metaplot justification for why Goliaths aren't just descended from Stone Giants now.

I am not saying that Eberron fans are a special group of people that are just more tolerant to retcons than all other D&D players. I'm saying that most D&D players are tolerant to retcons, it's the quality of retcons that determines whether or not people like it, not the fact that it's a retcon. I'm saying that you, for whatever reason, are averse to retcons in a way that most players aren't and you shouldn't assume the rest of the fanbase is as hostile to them as you are.

 

[Echohawk]

Not sure why I'm getting pushback on expressing how I feel about lore.

I hope you'll forgive me for trying to answer! I do not mean this to be a personal attack in any way.

I don't think you get pushback because you express how you feel about lore. I think you get pushback because you express how you feel about lore in every thread where there is any sort of opportunity to do so and you usually do so in the form of a criticism of WotC's current stewardship of the game. You doing that is post #4 of this thread, for example.

What you are intending to communicate is "WotC isn't doing what I would prefer them to do with D&D" but it comes across as "WotC's stewardship of D&D is objectively bad becuse it doesn't respect lore" even when you aren't actually saying those words. For many people, the opposite is true, so you get pushback.

I'm guessing that if you were to express your love of previous editions' metaplot without linking it to criticism of WotC, you probably wouldn't trigger constant pushback.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All stories have an end. It's the structure of a story.

And in using campaign settings for their intended purpose I'd want more gameable material... which destroying the setting ends.

Makes sense. I just never used D&D's settings as a place to set a campaign. Just as material to use for my homebrew, and as stories to enjoy.

 

[dave2008]

Makes sense. I just never used D&D's settings as a place to set a campaign. Just as material to use for my homebrew, and as stories to enjoy.

And that is fair and I am the same except for reading/using them as stories (which I don't). However, it is a game and setting material must first and foremost serve the game. The game doesn't need the story you want and it I think you have to admit your desires, though valid, are at the best secondary to the needs of the game.

 

[SkidAce]

As an aside, I'd love to see a thread on "Make Monsters Scary Again".

A place to discuss ways to get the characters, and their players, actually a bit anxious about the myriad mythical monsters they encounter.

Stuff like:

- show evidence of the monsters' deeds (destroyed farms, bodies of victims, lingering effects of their presence etc...) nice stuff from the WItcher RPG by Talsorian games

- adjust the stat blocks so that they're not banal and routine ("whaddaya mean these trolls aren't bothered by fire?")

- Monster tactics (eg insights from books like "The Monsters KNow What They're Doing", by Keith Ammann)

- Typical monster allies, hangers on and parasites (stirges follow the creature about because of all of the blood that gets splattered in their wake, goblins always have wolves and small fey sprites, Drow always have monstrous, expendable slaves etc)

- Thematic "finishing moves" or scary critical hits or "bloodied condition" effects (at 50% HP the vampire vomits a fountain of blood at the heroes, possibly blinding and choking them, the Death Knight may decapitate or chop off a limb on a target with a critical etc...)

I had an NPC illusionist that the party hated.

He cast Hold person on the the fighter, then cast his image over the fighter. Predictably, they unloaded first round on him, damaging the fighter. THEN his hobgoblin minions sprang the ambush.

RE: Make Monsters Scarey Again: Divert their attention, then ambush.