Evil Drow Statblocks to Return in Forgotten Realms Rulebooks Later This Year

Drow-specific NPC statblocks will be included in the upcoming Forgotten Realms Adventurer's Guide set for release later this year. Over the past several weeks, much hullabaloo has been made over the Monster Manual, specifically that the D&D design team replaced specific drow and orc statblocks with generic NPC statblocks that can be used for any kind of humanoids. In a video released today, D&D lead designer Jeremy Crawford confirmed that more specific statblocks tied to specific humanoid sects or characters would return in future rulebooks, with evil drow given as an example.

"Also for anyone who's eager to see more species-tailored humanoid statblocks, people are going to see more of that in our setting books," Crawford said. "You're going to see that in our Forgotten Realms products, for example. The malevolent drow of Menzoberranzan are an important part of that setting and so they get their own statblocks. This is really true of all the creatures in the Monster Manual. This is your massive starting toy box of monsters that are usable anywhere in the multiverse. The bestiaries in our setting products, that's where we can provide you versions of things tailored to the cultures and histories of our different worlds."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yup. What D&D has to my mind is a universe, not a multiverse.

Different material planes. So not a universe.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Its not a hang up, I already know the answer.

They could have just called it Planes. Much as they have Planeswalkers in MtG, and various spells (and a ton of references) to "Planes" in the 5.0 PHB.

Then they went with a shift to 'multiverse' for 'reasons'.

But no, I'm sure it had nothing to do with what Marvel was doing. Nothing at all.

Planes does not make sense either. A plane is one layer of something bigger.

So the accurate term would be space?

 

[Scribe]

Planes does not make sense either. A plane is one layer of something bigger.

So the accurate term would be space?

Plane, is D&D language, it makes enough sense for what its talking about.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Plane, is D&D language, it makes enough sense for what its talking about.

Nope. This is nonsense. The multiverse consists of different planes.

This is why it is PlaneSwalker. Not Planewalker.

 

[Scribe]

Nope. This is nonsense. The multiverse consists of different planes.

This is why it is PlaneSwalker. Not Planewalker.

Right, Planes.

Outer Planes, Elemental Planes, Material Plane, Astral Plane.

Planes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Right, Planes.

Outer Planes, Elemental Planes, Material Plane, Astral Plane.

Planes.

Oh yes. Planes. My bad.
Sorry.

Ok. It makes some sense.

I still don't like it too much though. It sounds as if something is missing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Right, Planes.

Outer Planes, Elemental Planes, Material Plane, Astral Plane.

Planes.

Whether you call the different Settings "Planes" or "Universes" really doesn't seem to matter very much, when the core complaint basically boiled down to "WoTC is using a term Disney is using. And you hate Disney's work, therefore WoTC is bad for using that word"

Could you make an argument that Toril and Eberron are different planes of existence, exactly like the Feywild and Shadowfell? I guess. If you squinted and twisted you could make it work. You could also call them different Universes. And neither is grossly incorrect. However, since you are not meant to be able to Plane Shift or Banish between Settings, and the term "Plane of Existence" has a much narrower meaning... it would simply be causing confusion to shift the meaning to include settings, just to spit in the eye of Disney who could not care less.

 

[jayoungr]

Marvel didn't invent the term "multiverse," nor do they have a monopoly on it. And their recent multiversal stuff hasn't been all that popular either, so I don't know how much it has in the way of coattails to ride.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I have one "universe" full of galaxies and star systems and worlds with varying degrees of magic, all coexisting.

Then I have the "alt timeline" worlds that are "what if" scenarios and home campaign variations.

But aren't those alt timeliness just implementing a multiverse?

My own campaign is loosely based Norse mythology so the cosmology is based on the great tree Yggdrasil. But just because Yggdrasil represents the material world and it's associated realms (aka planes) it doesn't mean that Yggdrasil is the only tree. But whatever symbolism people use to define their cosmos it doesn't really matter. The actual structure of reality (or realities if you prefer) is basically unknowable. My forest analogy also explains where outsiders come from, they aren't bound to one "tree".

I didn't do this because I care about the word "multiverse" one way or another, it's a term that's been used for at least 40 years in D&D. Disney doesn't own the word. I just did it this way because to me it would make sense both from the perspective who always defined their cosmology as a tree while still allowing for outsiders and potentially travelling between alternate campaign worlds.

 

[Oofta]

Marvel didn't invent the term "multiverse," nor do they have a monopoly on it. And their recent multiversal stuff hasn't been all that popular either, so I don't know who much it has in the way of coattails to ride.

It's kind of like saying D&D is hanging on coattails of the old (and likely obscure) Sliders TV series or Star Trek's mirror universes, or ... well any number of other depictions of a multiverse.