D&D (2024) I have a Monster Manual. AMA!


log in or register to remove this ad


Check out the new Flumph Colors and Emotions table!

Screenshot 2025-02-05 152426.jpg
 

Help with what?

The books do not determine what is in your game. The books do not tell you what is okay. Only you and your table can do that.
The official language used to characterize the various species is consequential.

It affects how D&D traditions across editions perpetuate for good or bad.
 

Right, and Bugbear is an example of demonizing a Nonhumanoid. (It should be demonized − this is literally a boogie monster from folk belief!)

But this is what cause the "new Orc" dilemma for various other Nonhumanoid species that become playable.
I don't know why WotC latched on to orcs specifically and not other species. For whatever reason, they've chosen to double down on the monstrous nature of goblinoids in the new MM.

Bugbears: "Bugbears embody fear of the wilds and the menace of natural places. They’re notoriously stealthy, and foes that venture into their territories often vanish without a trace ... Bugbear stalkers frequently take their victims hostage, relishing opportunities to imprison and terrorize other creatures ... Bugbear warriors serve those who offer them treasure, food, or the chance to hunt challenging prey."

Goblins: "Goblins are Feywild embodiments of recklessness and ruin. They delight in wreckage—the louder, the more energetic, and the more convoluted, the better. Goblin raids are often as much opportunities to enjoy setting fires and tormenting livestock as they are parts of more disruptive plots ..."

Hobgoblins: "Hobgoblins embody the primal urge to grow and spread, expressing such drives by bending the world to their whims. Lone hobgoblins claim woodland territories and plunder the wilds. In groups, they form hierarchical, martial societies bent on conquering lands and stripping them of resources to serve their expansionist zeal ... Many hobgoblins serve the violent god Maglubiyet, whose hunger for conquest matches their own ... The drive to subjugate and pillage is part of hobgoblins’ supernatural nature, though a few might repress their warlike tendencies or turn them to more useful ends."

And so on.
 

On a different note, if they had wanted to save some more space, they could have changed "Recharge after a Short or Long Rest" to be "1/Rest". They were willing to shorten "Recharges after a Long Rest" to "X/Day" after all. I don't think "X/Rest" is any harder to parse than "X/Day".
Yep, I've been doing that for years in my stat blocks and was frankly a bit surprised when WotC didn't do the same.
 


For example, Fey Goblins. Is it ok to demonize them while simultaneously making them humanlike player characters with humanlike traits? People play Goblins. Especially players who also play Pathfinder. How would Goblins not be the new Orc?

If humanlike, inevitably the stereotypes will borrow from reallife, such as groups who are desperately poor and "squatting".
I don't understand why you would treat a goblin, orc, izard folk, or and sapient species any different from a human? What game "type" it is seems completely irrelevant to the question. I don't "demonize" a type or a species for that matter.
 

I don't know why WotC latched on to orcs specifically and not other species. For whatever reason, they've chosen to double down on the monstrous nature of goblinoids in the new MM.

Bugbears: "Bugbears embody fear of the wilds and the menace of natural places. They’re notoriously stealthy, and foes that venture into their territories often vanish without a trace ... Bugbear stalkers frequently take their victims hostage, relishing opportunities to imprison and terrorize other creatures ... Bugbear warriors serve those who offer them treasure, food, or the chance to hunt challenging prey."

Goblins: "Goblins are Feywild embodiments of recklessness and ruin. They delight in wreckage—the louder, the more energetic, and the more convoluted, the better. Goblin raids are often as much opportunities to enjoy setting fires and tormenting livestock as they are parts of more disruptive plots ..."

Hobgoblins: "Hobgoblins embody the primal urge to grow and spread, expressing such drives by bending the world to their whims. Lone hobgoblins claim woodland territories and plunder the wilds. In groups, they form hierarchical, martial societies bent on conquering lands and stripping them of resources to serve their expansionist zeal ... Many hobgoblins serve the violent god Maglubiyet, whose hunger for conquest matches their own ... The drive to subjugate and pillage is part of hobgoblins’ supernatural nature, though a few might repress their warlike tendencies or turn them to more useful ends."

And so on.
Wow. That really is a sea change. WotC must really want players to feel they can kill stuff in game without feeling bad about it, and will manipulate their lore as needed to make that happen.
 

I don't understand why you would treat a goblin, orc, izard folk, or and sapient species any different from a human? What game "type" it is seems completely irrelevant to the question. I don't "demonize" a type or a species for that matter.
If the Goblin is a Fey "force of recklessness", then it has no free will, not in a human sense anyway, isnt humanlike, and isnt typically relatable and playable. The goblin is a demon of destruction, or rather a daemon of convoluted destruction.

By contrast, Orc, Lizardfolk, and Human are "Humanoid", explicitly humanlike.

But if many players are playing the Fey Goblins (compare when many players played Drow), then this is the new Drow, the new Orc.
 

Remove ads

Top