Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JEB" data-source="post: 9108842" data-attributes="member: 10148">Want to call this out in particular as a take I very much agree with.In early 5E they definitely gave the impression that they were trying to make a version of D&D for everybody, and this included an attempt to overtly respect the game's past (even, as you note, 4E) while still bringing in new, fresh spins. Nearly all of the new ideas in the Monster Manual were compatible with some past portrayal, unless you really got into specifics - at which point you were at the level of similar retcons between and even during past editions.Of course, this philosophy apparently changed by the time of Ravenloft and Monsters of the Multiverse (where even 5E's own lore was subject to revision). It may have changed again since, based on their handling of Spelljammer and especially Dragonlance... but as [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] suggested upthread, that may have more to do with cutting lore generally than an actual shift in policy.(A sidenote: changes to monster lore don't seem to trouble people to the same degree that campaign setting changes do. Unless it changes the fundamental "feel" of the monster, as happened sometimes in 4E. Maybe it's OK for monsters to have multiple-choice pseudo-mythological origins, but the fans of campaign settings are more attached to the particulars?)</blockquote>