Search results

They’re still called Celestials.

I have no idea what you’re even talking about at this point.

Any notable differences between the two versions?

Why does this feel barely hyperbolic?

Sorry, I just don’t find most Forgotten Realms lore interesting. Especially anything related to Mystra and the Weave. Any particular reason why some people seem to like Spellfire so much? Is it because of that book series?

?

Flavor overlap with other subclasses and I don't really like most of the abilities. I don't hate it with a passion, I just am not interested in it mechanically or thematically.

WotC’s campaign books tend to be better gazetteers for specific locations than actually good full campaigns. Rime of the Frostmaiden and Descent into Avernus both kind of expect the players to run around a sandbox long enough that they discover the loosely connected overarching plotline. They...

I know. I just thought they might errata Monsters of the Multiverse to turn the playable version into Aberations. I wanted them to do that.

Spellfire Review: Lore: I barely know about Spellfire (Laeral Silverhand has it, right?), and I don't really care. This subclass is at least easier to reflavor to other settings. I could see this being used for a Silver Flame Sorcerer in Eberron or a maybe a pyromancer subclass connected with...

No. You were mostly complaining that there wasn’t a stat block called “Orc” anymore.

Not many, and I didn’t like those either. When Tome of Foes came out, I complained that the Eladrin monsters were Fey and the subrace was humanoid. When Monsters of the Multiverse came out I complained that the Hobgoblin monsters were fey while the player option merely had fey ancestry.

I am by no means someone that thinks monsters and player characters need to use the same abilities and rules, but having the creature type of the player option and monster version be different is dumb. When the Gith change came in Planescape, I was excited because I thought that meant Gith would...

They were ordinary. But now they’re not. Now they’re adventurers, and thus important enough for the D&D camera to focus on them. If they were farmers or nobles, the Farming Simulator or Crusader Kings camera would be focusing on them instead. A character that refuses to adventure in an...

I am not a character in a game focused around adventuring. D&D characters aren’t born, they’re created to fill a very specific role. If the adventuring party isn’t inherently “special” in some way and the camera could focus on anyone in the setting, why doesn’t it focus on employed workers...

But why are the players controlling them? Why are adventurers/heroes the ones that are focused on? Why is the game adventurers going into dungeons to kill monsters and take their stuff? Why aren’t the PCs playing farmers, or blacksmiths, or reigning monarchs? Why is it considered bad form in the...

I have not, but I also reject the comparison. A D&D campaign isn’t comparable to a golf tournament. The camera is on the party because they’re special and doing the cool things. They’re adventurers. 90% of NPCs are commoners with jobs. Maybe the PCs are just uniquely skilled, or there could be...

But why is the camera focused on them?

Mechanics do take center stage. This book has over 500 stat blocks and the majority have mechanical upgrades, making them more interesting monsters to run. I do not understand what “primarily focused on illustrative purposes” means.

I mentioned two specifics that I preferred (not including Archons and Guardinals and having less specific lore). But the main point of the post was to say WotC was pretty clear about the nature of the new monsters in the videos.