D&D 5E D&D Lore Changes: Multiversal Focus & Fey Goblins of Prehistory

WotC's Jeremy Crawford revealed a couple of the lore changes in Monsters of the Multiverse.
  • The big shift is toward the multiverse as the game's main perspective rather than a specific setting. The game is shifting towards a multiversal focus, with a variety of worlds and settings.
  • Universe-spanning mythical story beats, such as deep lore on goblinoids going back to 1st Edition, and the gods they had before Maglubiyet. Prior to Magulbiyet unifying them, goblinoids were folk of the feywild in keeping with 'real-world' folklore.
  • Changelings aren't just Eberron, but they've been everywhere -- you just don't necessarily know it. Their origin is also in the realm of the fey.

Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


(he, him)
Hmmm. I think it's going to be a partial Spelljamer with the gonzo coming more from 'jammers being planar-style craft (planeships? planejammers? Spellplanes?) than brining back crystal spheres and all that.
I really hope they do not do that. Ships sailing the planes are all well and fine (and have plenty of precedent in D&D over the years), but calling them spelljammers is just false advertising.

Cosmology is by definition universal.
A setting can have its own local cosmology, and still be connected to a larger cosmology shared with other setting. I know it is possible because I do exactly this with my homebrew setting.

Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Yes I mentioned it in the post above actually, about dimensions and planes.

If you refer to the post about the soap bubbles (your last post before this one) that has nothing to do with the question I asked, unless you are trying to say that a universe without stars, galaxies and planets is a pocket universe. Which would seem to be strange, since in the time immediately after the Big Bang would then be defined as a pocket universe, which became a universe and then theoritically descends back into a pocket universe. This sort of model doesn't make much sense, considering that the content of the "space" has not and will not change, only the arrangement. It would be like saying an empty balloon isn't a balloon.

The post above that one simply links back to an older post, where you say that a universe requires planets, stars and galaxies to be a universe, which doesn't offer an alternative name for what you would call a post heat-death "universe".

So... yet again, can you repeat your answer since I cannot seem to find it and "the post above" doesn't give me anything accurate that makes sense.

Not it isn't, as we lack any reference point or true understanding of what it would be like to base any real meaningful discussion upon it (edit I am referring to the big rip). This is like discussing the inside of a black hole, and whether it leads to some other dimension. Another example of this is why the galaxies are moving away from us at ever increasing velocities.

We simply do not know enough to form a cogent answer.

Edit: In fact the nearest we got to examining a universe full of dead stars was the Xeelee books. But unable to defeat the Photino Birds, they created Bolders Ring and fled into another multiverse.

So... according to this part of your post, we don't even understand the universe well enough to define it. Yet, you confidently assert that the definitions provided, which we cannot have a meaningful discussion about because we lack a true understanding, MUST be wrong.

Also, I don't see any reason to believe that the Xeelee books by Stephen Baxter are any more relevant to what to call a universe without stars (funny, you just said it was a universe) than anything else. In fact, it seems like just a smokescreen that has nothing to do with the point.


Eberron has Thelanis and Dragonlance apparently has something called Summerhome, and both seem to be the Feywild in all but name. And Magic: the Gathering has Eldraine, which just hasn't been converted to 5e in any way yet (that I know of).
I don't believe Thelanis is really anything like the Feywild. But I don't see much point in diving down that rabbit hole at this time.


Claiming the dictionary is innacurate is laughable at best.

But you do have to admit, some science fiction author somewhere may have coined a new term that isn't in the Dictionary.

I mean, I make up new terms to describe new ideas I've had all the time.

Remove ads

Remove ads


Remove ads

Upcoming Releases