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

 

[Azzy]

You know what got me into D&D? The Monstrous Manual back in the 1990s. It was months before I bothered to learn how the rules worked - I just thought the monsters were the coolest thing. My 5E group's members were similarly hooked by the creative ideas, with the rules merely being a way to achieve their character concept. So I don't think less core lore is going to make the core game more appealing to many players.

However, I'd be interested to know if there are any folks out there who had the opposite trajectory - hooked by the statblocks, didn't bother reading any of the lore until later.

I started in BECMI and then 1e. There was less lore in the core books than there is in later editions of the game (including the feared 50Ae that is being assumed to be stripped of all that's good and holy). Somehow, I got hooked on D&D back then like so many others.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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...

Or they aren't for Spelljammer at all, but really for Planescape as a Aborean Elf, the powers scream upper planes. Healing, Radiant Damage, and Light, that doesn't scream Imperial Elf or Astral Plane, it screams Upper Planes.

 

[Malmuria]

The current buy-in for the core game is $150, which gets you enough lore material to run many campaigns. If the core rules now cut that lore down to a minimum, you're getting vastly less material for the same cost. Then you have to add a minimum of one setting book for $50 more to get the same amount of material you originally got for $150. And if you don't like that lore, you have to go buy more $50 setting books... or you're left to your own devices.

As for the "cheap" argument: $50 books add up in a hurry for someone on a limited budget. Let's not just think about the wealthy when we consider these decisions.

Which means it's in Wizards' best interest to produce material that seems worth buying. For some it's useful rules. For others it's inspirational lore. Cutting either back is not a selling point.

It is indeed a very good thing to have the Starter Set out there (and the Essentials Kit as well). I certainly hope that's been an entryway for lots of new D&D players. But I don't see the existence of the Starter Set as an argument for making the core books less appealing, if it can be avoided.

I think I'm confused as to the point you are making. You seem to indicate that making some lore setting-neutral would mean that players who are starting out would have to get four books (3 core + setting) instead of three, and that makes the game less affordable for some and/or would lead to lower sales for wotc because they aren't producing products worth buying. Is that correct?

I'm saying starter set + internet (SRD, forgotten realms wiki, etc) gives you access to all the rules you need and more lore than has ever been available at one time (and, when it comes to the FR wiki, all cross referenced to original sources). Thus, I don't see how cost would be exorbitant for those on a budget.

If anything, you have the age old problem of how Wotc is supposed to continue to make money given how cheap the hobby is (compared to almost any other entertainment aside from kicking a soccer ball around in the park). Previously, the answer was bloat --> new edition. For 5e, the answer has been adventures, and now settings. They might try to create a dnd beyond-like subscription service or a vtt or whatever.

It will be interesting to see how they present the core races and the humanoid monsters, but as stated above, the changes are not for the sake of making the game less appealing, but rather more appealing.

 

[JEB]

I think I'm confused as to the point you are making. You seem to indicate that making some lore setting-neutral would mean that players who are starting out would have to get four books (3 core + setting) instead of three, and that makes the game less affordable for some and/or would lead to lower sales for wotc because they aren't producing products worth buying. Is that correct?

Close, but not quite. There are two points to my argument:

• A significant reduction in inspirational lore overall in the 2024 core rulebooks will make the core rulebooks less appealing to players who were enticed by lore.
• Designing the 2024 core with the expectation that players will also buy a setting book means expecting them to make a larger initial investment than they do under the 2014 core.

Either or both of these could discourage new players from purchasing the core rules, which could in turn reduce the growth of the D&D fanbase.

Instead, I think they should keep the same proportion of lore to rules, but improve the lore and make it more open-ended, with multiple suggested alternative approaches which may or may not be based on specific settings. Directing players to a setting book for more detail is fine, but should not be a built-in expectation. This would keep the lore appeal of the core books intact, while still opening up the possibilities that Wizards says they want to create.

 

[Hussar]

I think you are overestimating the amount of long-term value calculations that most folks on a budget make when buying a special treat. Not to mention whether or not D&D is going to appear to be the best value even for those that do. You and I know you can get tons of value out of D&D, but to a new person it's competing with lots of other options. I'd rather not make it a less appealing option, if possible.

I think you are overestimating how much WotC cares about someone for whom a 10 dollar meal once a year is a major expense.

Sorry to be really blunt about it, but, arguments that RPG products should be cheaper really fly up my nose. Good grief, if you make D&D cheaper, that's going to force everyone else to go cheaper too - after all, it's extremely difficult for a 3pp to price themselves more than D&D. Not impossible, but, extremely difficult.

Not too many 30 dollar modules on DM's Guild after all. So, if the core D&D books go cheaper, you're basically devaluing everyone's work. And the value of RPG work is already far, far less than it should be.

 

[Yaarel]

I care about fair access to wealth.

That said.

People can play D&D inexpensively, especially if learning from experienced players, playing theater-of-mind style, and homebrewing their own worlds.

It is possible to play with only a Players Handbook and a Monster Manual. There is probably some vital content in the DMs Guide that should be in the Players Handbook, like skill check information like stealth and social reactions. But the DM can adjudicate this narratively, and play a good game.

Meanwhile, there is Basic for free, SRD, some pay-what-you-want on DMs Guild, and other online resources.

The books are expensive from the perspective of someone with low or no income, but there are ways to enjoy the game anyway.

 

[pukunui]

As evidence it's iffy. That book is explicitly optional rules and not the default of elves in 2e. It goes out of its way at the beginning to make sure that DMs and players are very aware of that fact.

It’s still proof that the idea long predated 5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It’s still proof that the idea long predated 5e.

It actually goes back to the 1st edition DMG, but I don't have photographic proof in my possession. It's okay not to like it but to try and argue that the Multiverse hasn't always been part of D&D is arguing that the sky is green.

People really need to go and read Michael Moorcock. people are citing REH as a big forgotten influence on D&D, but I think Moorcock is the big influence that is really forgotten.

 

[Hussar]

Heck, you only have to look at Deities and Demigods to see the whole notion of the "multiverse" in its infancy. All the humanoids had deities in that book. They weren't split by setting. If you were an orc, you worshipped Gruumsh. When Greyhawk, then Forgotten Realms were released, those humanoid deities stayed. There's a reason that drow in Greyhawk and drow in Forgotten Realms are pretty much identical. They are.

There wasn't even a suggestion that orcs in different settings (or any non-humans for that matter) weren't the same.

Dragonlance was actually pretty ground breaking because it actually gave a different origin for various races. AFAIK, Maglubiyet didn't appear in DL. Goblins worshipped Takhisis, if they worshipped anything.

 

[Demetrios1453]

True. Even the 5e Monster Manual describes Plesiosaurus as "a marine dinosaur", and Volo's puts Dimetrodon under the "Dinosaur" heading. Dimetrodon is more closely related to us than it is to dinosaurs!

Volo's at least sort of makes up for it by saying Dimetrodon isn't a dinosaur but lives in locations where dinosaurs can be found.

Which is true even in the real world. Same locations - just a mere 40+ million years apart!