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.

D&D 5E - A Compilation of all the Race Changes in Monsters of the Multiverse

Over on Reddit, user KingJackel went through the video leak which came out a few days ago and manually compiled a list of all the changes to races in the book. The changes are quite extensive, with only the fairy and harengon remaining unchanged. The book contains 33 races in total, compiled and...

www.enworld.org

 

[Maxperson]

In fact, they were specifically Gray/High elves.

That's what I remembered, but was not 100% on. Thanks!

 

[pukunui]

Multiverse considerations aside, as a biologist, that figure is just painful.

Fair enough. I think it was just a case of “let’s use a tree because elves”.

My point for sharing it was to show that the elves of various worlds have had a common / shared multiversal ancestry since long before 5e. At least as far back as 1992.

There’s a decent chunk of text to go with that diagram.

I’ll have to look and see if any of the other Complete Race books have something similar.

 

[Malmuria]

There are, in fact, people for whom a trip to Starbucks or a proper sit-down restaurant, or buying anything from McDonald's that isn't on the dollar menu, are all expensive enough that they have to be rare, special treats, assuming that they do them at all.

Is it really so hard to imagine that such people might already be reluctant to drop $50 on a RPG book? And that asking them to double their investment to get the same value in 2024 might make the prospect even less appealing?

Whose finances are we worried about here? Are we worried about wotc's finances, that they will suffer because people won't buy the books? I wouldn't worry about them. They seem to be doing great.

Are we worried that the expense of the hobby will prevent people from getting into it? As long as you have an internet connection you can play dnd for free. And also there are lots of other rpgs out there, either free or much much cheaper than dnd. If 5.5e's cost leads people to other rpgs, good (and many of them offer community copies)! (and, to be honest, it's very easy to steal access to all the rules).

Also, more content does not mean a better product. As I mentioned in another thread, I find pages upon pages of lore to be boring and confusing, and prefer more concise writing that is, importantly, presented in a usable fashion.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Fair enough. I think it was just a case of “let’s use a tree because elves”.

My point for sharing it was to show that the elves of various worlds have had a common / shared multiversal ancestry since long before 5e. At least as far back as 1992.

There’s a decent chunk of text to go with that diagram.

I’ll have to look and see if any of the other Complete Race books have something similar.

That book is notorious for being a munchkins dream and that diagram is utter bollocks for the reasons already described and more. (It doesn’t even get the relationship of the various DL elves correct, and no Ravenloft elves come from this nomadic group).

And one poorly regarded splatbook does not a consensus make.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I find it humorous that every update/change to D&D in the future is automatically considered "better than before" by all the diehard loyalists or the new people.

I am also often amused by things that don't exist and haven't happened.

It looks like someone tried to draw a cladogram without understanding how a cladogram actually works.

More like caring. Probably at all. Nor having absolutely any reason whatsoever to care.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I don't remember Astral Elves being in Spelljammer, and those sound very planar to me. I tend to think it will be more of a Planejammer setting.

They just simply be a renamed Imperial Elf from Spelljammer, who were an important faction in the setting. The name change might just be simply that "Imperial" doesn't exactly give a favorable impression, or they might be revealed to have had an Astral origin like Githyanki...

Edit: I see others have already responded similarly...

 

[Demetrios1453]

Multiverse considerations aside, as a biologist, that figure is just painful.

• If the elves of Ravenloft and Spelljammer come "from all worlds", why are they shown as independent branches from the "Nomadic High Elves" common ancestor?
• Among the other settings, why is there no attempt to assemble an actual tree structure instead of drawing a separate line for each one?
• In Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms, which branch points among the populations are intended to be nested, and which are intended as 3+ way branch points like the base of the tree?

I get that there are complications introduced by working with a) fantasy settings and b) populations that may still be capable of interbreeding. But this doesn't look like someone made deliberate alterations to a cladogram for specific purposes. It looks like someone tried to draw a cladogram without understanding how a cladogram actually works.

Cladisitics was really just coming to the fore in the '90s, so expecting a fantasy game splatbook to be up-to-date on such things is probably a bit too much to expect. As a non-expert who has periodically looked into biology books that go into classification, I really don't remember seeing it in general books until around 2000 or so; previously such books were still using the traditional, non-cladistic classification system.

I mean, D&D has never been on the cutting-edge when it comes to this sort of thing. Just go back and read 2e descriptions of dinosaurs, for example. Even then, with the "sluggish, stupid, and cold-blooded" paradigm already being replaced at that time among the general populace, D&D still stuck with it...

 

[pukunui]

That book is notorious for being a munchkins dream and that diagram is utter bollocks for the reasons already described and more. (It doesn’t even get the relationship of the various DL elves correct, and no Ravenloft elves come from this nomadic group).

And one poorly regarded splatbook does not a consensus make.

Sure. Feel free to disregard the evidence that doesn’t fit your predetermined narrative.

The fact is: this is not a new idea, however much you might like it to be.

 

[JEB]

Whose finances are we worried about here? Are we worried about wotc's finances, that they will suffer because people won't buy the books? I wouldn't worry about them. They seem to be doing great.

Are we worried that the expense of the hobby will prevent people from getting into it? As long as you have an internet connection you can play dnd for free. And also there are lots of other rpgs out there, either free or much much cheaper than dnd. If 5.5e's cost leads people to other rpgs, good (and many of them offer community copies)! (and, to be honest, it's very easy to steal access to all the rules).

I'm definitely not worried about Wizards' finances. I'm just concerned with not making D&D less appealing to get into than it is now, in terms of inspiring content or in terms of cost. I like there being lots of people of all ages, preferences, and incomes playing D&D.

But if you see D&D becoming harder to get into as a good thing, because it may drive people to alternative options, you're certainly welcome to that view.

Also, more content does not mean a better product. As I mentioned in another thread, I find pages upon pages of lore to be boring and confusing, and prefer more concise writing that is, importantly, presented in a usable fashion.

Sure, but your "boring and confusing" can be someone else's "fascinating and inspiring". And the 2014 balance of rules and lore in the core rules seemed to work pretty well for the majority of new and veteran players, considering the edition's success. So I don't think Wizards would be wise to throw off that balance.

 

[Hussar]

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are a fan of Dragonlance and actually want a 5E setting sourcebook... would it actually matter if they in fact DID include a chapter in the setting book for Spelljammer / Krynnspace? Would that one chapter in an otherwise full 200+ pages of Dragonlance information STOP you from buying the book, rather than just buying the book for all the stuff you want and then just not reading or using that chapter? Do you actually need every single chapter and page in a book to be useable to you for it to be worthy of purchase?

Not who you were posting to, but, I do get the issue. I was that way for years. The inclusion of Planescape material in supplements just drove me around the twist. To be fair, it wouldn't stop me from buying something, typically, but, it would be a constant irritant.

Knowing that going forward, every time I pick up a supplement for something (whatever that is) will always include at least some material that I know I won't like, is just really annoying. And, sometimes, more than really annoying. The 3e Paizo adventure path - Savage Tides - delves deep into Planescape for the finale three or four parts of the 12 part module. Something I didn't know when I started collecting the modules. It meant that I cut off the AP quite early.

Now, imagine that every DL supplement, from a single setting book to adventures to anything else, will include about 1/3 material that you will not like and will feel that you have to change.