D&D (2024) Monster manual Fey video up

I would be fine with that if the book was clear about it being a tool and guidebook that provided multiple ways of doing things. But that's not what they do. They change things and present them as, "This is how it is". We're already seeing that all over the 5.5 books, just like D&D has always done. The books are not presented as a bunch of options to choose from.
That could be true. I can only see things how I see them and I don't see them as saying "this is how it is." I want to be clear, this is my perspective and has almost nothing to do with how things are actually written on the page.

Every since about my 1st year playing D&D in the 80s I realized the game was a vague suggestion on how you might want to play. That understanding was integral to my D&D experience. It is my game to make with what I want (and I quickly developed 24+ pages of houserules for our 1e/BECMI D&D game). Nothing has changed in the past 50 years (about 40 years for me) to change that mindset and understanding of the game. D&D, for me, is not about what is written in a book, but what you play at the table. That is what it will always be for me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just want to stop you there.

They did say a PC can still play non-humanoids. IIRC they mentioned all the non-humanoids in previous books. The also specifically mentioned that they have non-humanoid PC options coming out in a future book.
Then why have the same creature be one or the other? What's the up-side?

I know I'm harping on this, but I really, really don't get it.
 



Is there a way for PCs to learn those NPC spells? If not then you are breaking setting logic.

Of course there is, just like any other spell.

I do not subscribe to the notion that PCs should be automatically allowed to learn any spell, feat or ability just because an NPC or monster has access to it. It does not break "setting logic" for there to be Draconic Magic or Aberrant Psionics or Wemic Kung-Fu whatever that are only available to those alien minds and bodies.
 

Why would you have separate representations of them mechanically if the only difference is creature type?
Probably a few reasons, but the one they give in the video is narrative.

Creature type tells a deliberate story in this version of the game. Something about where your magic comes from or why you are the way you are. So if you say your character is a humanoid, that means something specific. It sounds like it means something like "they are basically like humans, with maybe a few little tweaks." So to say that a goblin or a githzerai is humanoid is kind of to say, "this creature is from the material world and doesn't have more than a shadow of inherent magic and raises families and eats food and survives much like a real world human does. Not exactly the same, but close enough that the difference is a little subtle."

In comparison, you have your fey goblins, which are of the feywild, inherently magical in a big way, capable of inherent trickery and illusion that humanoid goblins aren't capable of without studying magic (say by becoming an illusionist). They do not live lives like people do. They dwell in the graces of the courts of the Feywild, where time flows different and the stars come down to play.

I'd also wager that, mechanically, it means "You can use our 'generic NPC' stat blocks for those, with an extra trait or two. A humanoid goblin knight isn't much different from a human knight or a dwarven knight - not in a way that would impact CR or anything. Add a quirk or two from the species traits and run with it." In comparison, a fey goblin is its own thing. Not a knight or a guard or a commoner or whatever, but a creature whose magic defines its capabilities more strongly.

I can imagine a fey goblin that's still balanced as a PC species, but it might have a different set of abilities than the humanoid goblin that's already in the game - more magical, more dramatic. Maybe (and this is speculation) more powerful because it also eats up your Background or something.
 


I do not subscribe to the notion that PCs should be automatically allowed to learn any spell, feat or ability just because an NPC or monster has access to it. It does not break "setting logic" for there to be Draconic Magic or Aberrant Psionics or Wemic Kung-Fu whatever that are only available to those alien minds and bodies.
I agree some magic is not learnable by PCs. However, if something is a spell I am willing to allow it to be learned. It is not automatic though. The PC has to spend money and time (downtime) to research the spell and then succeed on crafting the spell. Depending on the source of the spell that could be relatively easy or very difficult.
 


I mean bare minimum you'd have to assume that Oerth, Toril, and Krynn all have their own Tarrasque.

...Unless it can shunt itself across space:eek:
Or fly? Hehe.

1737734850084.png


edit: shame gif doesnt play...
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top