D&D (2024) Fey Video Critique & Alternate Perspective

[I'm A Banana]

If this was the case, then they could have made the Tieflings into Fiends, the Aasimar into Celestials and brought back the Elan for the playable Aberration species. This would have made the species line-up in the 5.5e PHB more interesting.

I think it's worth noting that part of the reason the didn't do this, I'd imagine, is because aasimar and tieflings have always been humans with a little "something else" in them. The narrative suggests that they're humanoid.

Compare, say, a warforged. The narrative for that suggests very much that they're CONSTRUCTS.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That’s tough, bro. Hard times indeed.

I’m waiting on a cancer diagnosis myself. But I empathize with the angst.

Mod Note:

This kind of tragi-comedic one-upsmanship isn’t really conducive to civil discourse.

 

[Parmandur]

Did they say that though? I will have to re-watch the video I guess, but I remember them saying this change was already made in MotM (which it was) and the MM is simply catching up to how they have been represented since that book. I don't remember them pushing that this is player driven as you or @Quickleaf suggest. I could easily be wrong, but I took it as: people have been playing this way because that is how we represent them in MotM, not: people have been playing this way so we followed there lead.

EDIT: Just started re-watching the video and they clearly (starting at 1:43 or so) say the switch of goblins to fey was a move they (as in WotC) started in MotM and they final had a chance to make the Monster Maunal "catch up." They made not claims to this being a player driven idea. Where did you get this idea from, does it come later in the video? I'll keep watching.

EDIT: at about 4:14, they again state it was there idea to look at all the humanoid monsters and see if perhaps they should be a better fit in a different category. Again, this was their choice and made no claims it was plater driven. They stuff like, we decided to "lean into" the whimsy of bullywugs and make them fey.

And they tested the Monsters of the Multiverse changes to Goblinoids, specifically, waaaaaaaay in advance. And at the time, it was apparently wildly popular ad a suggestion, and been the case in new books for years now.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think it's worth noting that part of the reason the didn't do this, I'd imagine, is because aasimar and tieflings have always been humans with a little "something else" in them. The narrative suggests that they're humanoid.

Compare, say, a warforged. The narrative for that suggests very much that they're CONSTRUCTS.

True. Though in Pathfinder 2nd edition (not the remastered version), Aasimars and Tieflings are versatile heritages that can be applied to any ancestry. So, you could have Elven Tieflings (the Fey'ri) or Dwarven Aasimar.

 

[Quickleaf]

Sorry for delay writing back to you all! Between health/insurance challenges and trying to help some folks being affected by recent changes in U.S., my time for games is being eaten up. Really good questions! I didn't expect so much response or to be so contentious, and I'll try to address main questions...

Why does it matter if it’s a designer choice to go back to the fey origin over a player one?

Maybe it doesn't matter to you. "Design will be what it will be, and as a consumer I don't really need to know their reasons, I either will like or not" is a valid perspective. If that's your perspective, my post probably has nothing of value for you.

I think it matters because the context is that WotC is talking a lot about the evolution of the game in the context of "lessons from play." For example, a common house rule during 2014 was "drink potions as bonus action", and that migrated into 2024 rules. Another example, many groups were not running 6-8 combats per adventuring day, and (as I understand it) the 2024 DMG abandons that language and changes the encounter design guidelines to reflect how the game is being played.

My observation – not just based on this video, but in totality – is that the "evolving game" (or similar language) is being used during marketing in such a way that it's easy to conflate "evolving game by design directive" versus "evolving game by how it's being played." I think it matters when there's ambiguity in the messaging about the "evolving game." For example, in 5 years if that ambiguity persists, it would be very easy for a marketing person at WotC to say "Due to player support for goblins as fey, we transitioned them to the fey type and it has been wildly popular."

That sort of language I noticed a lot in the 4e marketing – where it felt like WotC was telling fans what fans like... when really the truth was many of those lore changes were for internal corporate reasons that we only got to learn about waaaaay after the fact.

I'm not sure it's the change, but the marketing speak and loose truth of the reasoning.

Yeah, you're picking up what I was driving at. Sorry if I wasn't being clear. It's the... skirting close to that "we did this because it was what fans wanted" that troubles me – NOT the specifics of goblins being fey – rather it's the thought process, the marketing, and what that implies.

The designers make decisions based on commerce. They wouldn't make the decision unless they felt it would be popular with their target audience (hint: you may not be their target audience).

I am not their target audience. 100%.

But I'm also seeing changes that are inconsistent or contradictory to who they've described as their target audience (at least as best as I can assess that). For example, the treasure bit in the 2024 MM entries might say any/none/or refer to the DMG; for a newer audience requiring cross-referencing between books to determine treasure (like we did in AD&D) is – IMHO – a very clear contradiction.

So...a design choice might be based on commerce...but that doesn't mean it is executed in a way that best serves the target audience. I think that's an important distinction. I'm not sure whether the goblin change is one that will serve their target audience or not.

Okay overall your points are sound enough, albeit I'm unsure what the big deal is. But they didn't say or imply that these upcoming options are Fey, or Goblins at all, so I'm not sure how this is doublespeak.

There are also already three playable Fey species in WOTC 5E; Satyrs, Centaurs, and Changelings. There's also a Construct (Autognome) Monstrosity (Thri-Kreen) and an Ooze (Plasmoid) so I'd lean towards believing that Crawford was hinting at something else, such as a Fiend, Celestial, or Aberration playable species.

Oh, I had no idea they introduced Fey Type player species already! Cool! I haven't bought WotC books since Witchlight (2021), so I didn't know. It makes the designers' comments in the video a bit...confusing...since they made it sound as if "playing a non-humanoid type" was a new thing they were introducing. I get it, though, that's pretty common marketing speak they're using for the reboot books.

Did they say that though? I will have to re-watch the video I guess, but I remember them saying this change was already made in MotM (which it was) and the MM is simply catching up to how they have been represented since that book. I don't remember them pushing that this is player driven as you or @Quickleaf suggest. I could easily be wrong, but I took it as: people have been playing this way because that is how we represent them in MotM, not: people have been playing this way so we followed there lead.

Yes, that's right, if you watch the video closely and look for the language, yes they are saying that the change is coming from the design team. I didn't catch that right away though. It's the context that this marketing is happening within – like I mentioned above in my response to @MonsterEnvy – that raises my eyebrows.

Exactly what you're saying is what caught my eye – there's been a lot of discussion/marketing about the evolving game as something they've learned from players...but this was the first time where they were using similar language in reference to a different meaning of the evolving game. That's what struck me, that the designers were saying (paraphrasing) "the evolving game is what we decide it to be" rather than the context I was hearing in previous marketing "the evolving game is what players are doing with the game in the wild." I hope that clears it up!

 

[Dire Bare]

The only aspects of this where I agree with OP and have concerns are, 1) the hold/charm person issue, and 2) the goblins being not-people issue.

Someone in another thread mentioned that one of the alt-5E rulesets changes those types of spells to just simply "Charm" and "Hold" . . . seems to neatly fix the problem, and I'll probably use that in my games.

And I think I'll just start ignoring the "humanoid" type altogether, it's seemed meaningless to me for a long time, and even more so now. Creatures of any type can be "people" or even player characters.

But . . . the D&D design team having different ideas and preferences than I bothers me not in the slightest. I'll just change what needs changing in my home games.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah, when WotC is talking about a creature's "narrative," it's all top-down. What they decide a goblin's story is may or may not be the same thing a goblin's story is in your game. They have a reason for wanting goblins to be fey (I suspect it's because they've got a big fey themed adventure on the near horizon). It may be a welcome change or not, but it is THEIR change.

I forgot how much I enjoy your thought process, Kamikaze. Always a pleasure hearing your feedback and views.

Yes, a future product that they can't discuss yet involving fey or fey goblins would make a lot of sense.

I think this has some nuance based on the fact that 2024 isn't a fully new edition. It exists in the context of being 5e. 5e already has humanoid goblins, and those aren't going anywhere. I suspect the humanoid goblins will use the "generic NPC" statblocks, rather than any entry for "Goblin." It sounds like they're not going to focus on them, but much like, idk, the rune knight, it's still a viable option.

I do think that they have been very bad about communicating this point.

Uff, yeah that's confusing. But some kind of a goblin species template applied to NPC stat blocks miiiight work... my sense however is that is not what they've done for the 2024 MM? Might be wrong.

If they are treating the 2024 MM (with fey goblins) as an extension of the 2014 MM (with humanoid goblins), that suggests they're designing for existing players. If they're treating 2024 MM as stand alone, that's the approach I'd expect if their main target audience is newer players (who will have fey goblins as the only goblins).

I don't think they're omitting humanoid goblins from the game. So, it's more a matter of charm person doesn't work against EVERY goblin. And while I'm on board with their instinct (it is good when a player needs to vary their tactics), I do think this is a little kludgy.

I wonder what stopped them from updating charm person in the 2024 edition to something that was more like a charm that affects "creatures of the same type as you" or something. The sense that I always got was that the reason charm person was limited by type was because it was meant to only charm things that were reasonably like yourself.

Yeah, so much of the issue could be circumvented by changing spells that specific "humanoid only" targets. That makes sense to me.

Yeah, one of the fun things about the new philosophy of typing is that I could see ALL of those creatures having Fey versions. And some of those creatures having, say, Fiend versions. Dragon versions. Giant versions. Elemental versions...

But yes, WotC is doing some marketing at us based on what they think is an exciting direction to take Goblins in. The fact that they're not forcing all of D&D to cooperate with this new direction is a good thing, I think, and makes me more amenable to seeing where they go with this, knowing humanoid goblins are still a part of the game.

I do wonder about WotC's expectations for new players.

If 2024 MM is like you're saying – NPC stat blocks with species template – that's a great approach and solves the issue.

If not... I would think that means new players who played Baldur's Gate, saw the D&D episode on Secret Level, and only have the 2024 MM are only going to have fey goblins. For the time being.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For example, the treasure bit in the 2024 MM entries might say any/none/or refer to the DMG; for a newer audience requiring cross-referencing between books to determine treasure (like we did in AD&D) is – IMHO – a very clear contradiction

Younger players will use the digital version, so cross-referencing is a non-issue. “What is this pa-per you talk about grandad?”

Do you not think WotC’s market research means they understand their market better than you do?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Younger players will use the digital version, so cross-referencing is a non-issue. “What is this pa-per you talk about grandad?”

Do you not think WotC’s market research means they understand their market better than you do?

That argument basically shuts down any suggestion that WotC's approach isn't the right one. "The big company knows better, so don't question them" is not an avenue for discourse.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That argument basically shuts down any suggestion that WotC's approach isn't the right one. "The big company knows better, so don't question them" is not an avenue for discourse.

Following the market isn't always the best decision - that's what they did with 4e, then found themselves in a marketplace where they couldn't compete with an established market leader. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. But being a secondary school teacher, one of the things you observe is just how difficult it is to keep up with popular culture. But I'm not so far behind that I can't see how totally out of touch people on these forums are. D&D started out reflecting the pop culture of the 1960s and 70s, and has continuously changed in order to stay relevant. But people cannot change in the same way a game can. They remain fixed in the culture of their formative years, because those are the years the human brain is completely focused on learning and acquiring culture.

WotC don't always make the right decisions, but they are better placed to know their market, and better motivated to want to make decisions that will be profitable.