D&D 5E 2024 Monster Manual has better lore than 2014 Monster Manual

[Parmandur]

They have hinted there will be some (drow), but I am wondering if this will just be for sentient and/or PC type monsters.

I expect a rather robust Bestiary, on the hypothesis that the 2-book set started out as a three book slipcase like Spelljammer and Planescape. There are a lot of FR specific Monsters that still aren't in 5E, and a lot of cultural specificity like the Mezzo Droe or Red Wozards to explore.

 

[Retros_x]

Which setting books have monster lore for the whole monster manual?

Which campaign uses all monsters? You use the one that are appropiate to the setting.

 

[jayoungr]

This is one of those threads that just boils down to "Better for which purpose?" Neither approach is objectively superior; either one can be superior for a particular user.

 

[Incenjucar]

Which campaign uses all monsters? You use the one that are appropiate to the setting.

Most settings include all creatures from the MM and then put setting-specific monsters in setting books.

But hey, what setting books identify which monsters are appropriate to the setting and then give all the setting-specific lore for them?

 

[Retros_x]

Most settings include all creatures from the MM and then put setting-specific monsters in setting books.

But hey, what setting books identify which monsters are appropriate to the setting and then give all the setting-specific lore for them?

I think a bit common sense is ok to expect by players. But honest question: Are you not able to use the monster manual in the game right now because of the lack of lore? Do you need to continue to use 2014? Or are you just arguing for a virtual point that is not really relevant for your actual game?

 

[dave2008]

Most settings include all creatures from the MM and then put setting-specific monsters in setting books.

But hey, what setting books identify which monsters are appropriate to the setting and then give all the setting-specific lore for them?

Theros did.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm fine with deep lore being in something like Draconomicon, Glory of the Giants, etc., but for a MM I would have rather had more monsters than the "deep lore" sections we got in Volo's and Mord's - especially since for my homebrew, the background for the creatures they talked about followed older 2E lore and had gone a different direction of personal development, so it wasn't applicable for me.

For me, in the MM, a paragraph or two about the creature's role in the world is enough for me. As above, if I want something more in depth I'll go hunt down the lore specific books (Elminster's Ecologies, Draconomicon, Drow of the Underdark, etc.). A fair example would be the 2014 Aboleth entry. It's probably more than I'd expect (the bolded bullet point part and first sentence would do), but if I wanted deeper info I'd go search out the Aboleth section in 3.5E's Lords of Madness.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think a bit common sense is ok to expect by players. But honest question: Are you not able to use the monster manual in the game right now because of the lack of lore? Do you need to continue to use 2014? Or are you just arguing for a virtual point that is not really relevant for your actual game?

I was responding to a specific position on where monster lore should be instead of the Monster Manual.

You can eliminate basically all of the lore and play the game. "I use my d6 two square math against the four square opponent with the red math cone" "You have reduced the opponent to no math and obtained the win condition." You can spend decades generating your own lore. You can borrow lore from other systems. You can indeed describe ochre jellies in settings books instead of their initial monster entry.

All of these are possible, but the costs and benefits differ.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think a bit common sense is ok to expect by players. But honest question: Are you not able to use the monster manual in the game right now because of the lack of lore? Do you need to continue to use 2014? Or are you just arguing for a virtual point that is not really relevant for your actual game?

I think all of us here have other materials; we didn't start with 5.5, any of us (I think). The point here is the people moving forward who will be starting with 5.5.

 

[Incenjucar]

Theros did.

See that one makes sense to me, as was done for Dark Sun in previous editions since everything is different.

I'm guessing it went into some detail on Greek-specific creatures, provided setting-specific differences for intelligent species, and discouraged the use of things outside of those?