Search results

Which is backwards. The name comes from the slain black dragon, and if you want something that is evocative of the setting, you can be prepared to care about the history and context of the setting. We don't need to Christopher Columbus this and call something that's not from India an Indian just...

Conceptually, I like how these classes are very tied to FR specifically. That's a wonderful bit of design kit and it's something I hope to see more of - classes that evoke some local flavor. Specifically, my biggest gripe is about the Purple Dragon Knight. This is backwards. If what you want...

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...

I'd wager we still have a Goblin template for the NPC statblocks, which is how you'd stat up a humanoid goblin with the 2025 MM.

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...

Maybe possible, but with the way books are planned out years in advance by the team, I'd doubt it. They've known what they wanted in this book for probably AT LEAST a year now, and it's not likely to dramatically change without good reason.

Ogres are an interesting case study for this new typing, because of our old school "ogre magi" AKA Oni. So you can have Ogres of the Giant type. And you can have Ogres of the Fey type that might be a little more fairy tale. Maybe they turn to stone if touched by sunlight. And you can have...

It's OK to mistrust the messaging. I'd even suspect that you're right that part of why they wanted to be looser with typing is that it's easier to show that not all creatures of a given name are a monolith. But they don't need to confess this to the public as if they're apologizing for...

This is how conspiracy theories flourish. A large, complicated entity does something to break your trust in it. So, understandably, you don't trust it. Then the large, complicated entity does something, and gives you a reason for it. And you just...substitute your own...and declare it...

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...

Yeah, two separate species (or more), all being kinds of "goblin." The quote in its full context is specifically about PHB elves, which Jeremy describes as having "lost some of their feyness," when specifically compared to their fully fey ancestors. In this context, he's explaining how the PHB...

This boils down to 5.24 being designed with a certain impact budget in mind. Being Fey probably isn't a dealbreaker for PC's, but being Large is a significant mechanical change that just blows being a halfling out of the water in terms of its impact on gameplay. I don't know if WotC has any...

I think there might be a bit of nuance lost here. When I read the first sentence, I read "players can't be fey," which feels deeply limiting. But the idea of there being forthcoming species that aren't humanoid implies that there's nothing inherently taboo about non-humanoid PC's. That's good...

The PC species thing is in a bit of a weird limbo, I think. On the one hand, there are already species in 5e who are humanoids whose monster versions in the MM are not going to be humanoids. Crawford mentioned Gith specifically. And then he gives a bit of a fictional band-aid over it ("lost...

This is a big impact, so just doing it as a species isn't going to work. Doing it per the 5e MM is also going to be underwhelming if the player's looking for "werewolf skills." Sounds like the player's going to want to do "cool werewolf stuff" in every fight, maybe on every turn - that's a big...

Your ability to make stuff up isn't the point, though. You can make up your own monsters, why have an MM? You can make up your own adventures, why buy a WotC adventure? You can make up your own magic spells, why do we have spell lists? You can make up your own rules, why have a PHB? The point...

It has a lot of bearing on play. It plays into the description of the creature in a major way. It's also relevant for looting, as has been described. Play is more than just the raw numbers.

Yeah, you'd think that they'd take the opportunity when revising the game to streamline and clarify the advice. Just giving up is....also, an option, I guess.

Something like this has been my experience for almost every session I run. So listen when I tell you: this is too difficult (too time-consuming) for me. The 2024 designers have ballpack damage / attack / hp / ac numbers for a given CR. Why don't we? I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that...

This is close to a dealbreaker for me for 2024. Missing monster creation rules sounds like "play with the toys we give you, do not make your own" to me, and that's not why I play D&D. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing they'd do, so I'd be surprised if there wasn't a discussion, but them...