Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JEB" data-source="post: 8527848" data-attributes="member: 10148">So from the first video, I'm supposed to believe that:a) Because they're trying to emphasize the wide array of options in the multiverse and open up story possibilities, they... stripped out all but a limited amount of lore rather than presenting a baseline alongside options reflecting different worlds?b) They really wanted to include lore like the goblinoids' fey origin in earlier books, but it simply wasn't "appropriate" to do so at the time. Why, exactly, was it not "appropriate"? They were happy to alter gnolls' origins in 5E, what was different about goblins?c) Their idea of "deep" lore is a paragraph or two per creature/species? What were the pages of lore in earlier books, then?Now, don't get me wrong: I'm actually fine with the new goblin lore as described, since he's explained that it incorporates ideas from older lore rather than being completely out of nowhere. One hopes that the new lore for the others is similarly thoughtful and combines old with new. (This approval is based on it being reflected in the actual sourcebook text, however; is it?)But honestly, I smell a lot of spin here. If they want me to believe that this is really just about selling "the multiverse" or opening up options, they need to demonstrate that in products. The "one or two paragraphs" approach isn't going to cut it, that's a bare minimum of material that will leave all but the most creative novice players and DMs largely on their own.(Side question: How likely is it that there will be continued support for playing Maglubiyet's goblinoids, once 2024 edition hits and Volo's inevitably goes out of print?)As for the second video...That explanation for the new elf trance is neat! So, is it all reflected in the new lore? Or just the designers' justification for the new rules? (A mistake they made in early 4E is thinking that mechanics with fancy names are themselves inspirational, and require no lore backing. I still don't know what the banshrae's "mantid dance" was, for example.)And again with the claims that they never intended ASIs to reflect characteristics of the races themselves. If they didn't, then why was applying ASIs part of the suggested way to reflect races in NPC stat blocks? And why did they even have fixed ASIs in the first place? (Seriously, Wizards, is it really so hard to admit you changed your mind?)</blockquote>

Verification