D&D 5E Does anyone who got an mm at Gencon want to offer up spoilers to us?

[Shemeska]

While [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] and I often disagree on the value of sticking with old-edition lore, in this case I think we're very much on the same page. I really don't see the upside in tying Asmodeus into the Yugoloths' creation. Honestly, I think Asmodeus already has an unfair amount of focus/influence, as compared to other arch-fiends. He doesn't need any more, and the Yugoloths don't need to have been "devil lite."

But then, I'm also irked that the ultraloth is markedly less powerful than the balor and pit fiend, and that we got mention of the General of Gehenna--who's described as an extra-powerful ultraloth, nothing more unique--and we didn't get Anthraxus. (Who, if we're going back to 1e, was--by XP value--actually more dangerous than Demogorgon or Asmodeus.

But I'm not bitter.

We're very much on the same page. I think most of the time we're probably on the same page to be honest, with the exception of a few particular situations (and honestly I'd be totally cool with returning Anthraxus to the top of Khin-Oin, provided that it be given a solid treatment rather than happening in a line or two in a supplement. He's a classic character and his return would deserve better).

This particular bit of 5e lore regarding the 'loths solidly conflicts with the stated intention of 5e embracing D&D's history and past editions' material. It's really disappointing for me, right up there with the 5e tiefling.

Of course if an eventual MotP acknowledges the depth of 2e/3e lore on the 'loths and their origins by presenting them as options that would help a lot, same as seeing 2e/3e style wildly-variable tieflings returned to the game (and called tieflings). 5e's focus should be on presenting options that embrace the game's unique history rather than rewriting it with the flavor of the week, and if they need subject matter junkies for various areas, they're out there. I would happily lore check for WotC anything involving the 'loths.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

We're very much on the same page. I think most of the time we're probably on the same page to be honest, with the exception of a few particular situations (and honestly I'd be totally cool with returning Anthraxus to the top of Khin-Oin, provided that it be given a solid treatment rather than happening in a line or two in a supplement. He's a classic character and his return would deserve better).

This particular bit of 5e lore regarding the 'loths solidly conflicts with the stated intention of 5e embracing D&D's history and past editions' material. It's really disappointing for me, right up there with the 5e tiefling.

Of course if an eventual MotP acknowledges the depth of 2e/3e lore on the 'loths and their origins by presenting them as options that would help a lot, same as seeing 2e/3e style wildly-variable tieflings returned to the game (and called tieflings). 5e's focus should be on presenting options that embrace the game's unique history rather than rewriting it with the flavor of the week, and if they need subject matter junkies for various areas, they're out there. I would happily lore check for WotC anything involving the 'loths.

Yes, this.

One of my concerns is that some of the calls they are making, while I can see that they are intending to honor past lore rather than overwrite it, is ending up failing to discriminate between what matters and what doesn't (to the people to whom it matters at all).

In the matter of Planescape-era stuff, there is a lot of vitally important lore if you want to maintain support for that sort of campaign without requiring DMs to do house rule roll-backs.

What I think they really needed to specifically do was go to the actual fan bases of the various elements of prior D&D setting material that they wanted to support and ask them how it should be done.

If they had went over to some place like planewalker.com and talked with people they could have gotten a better idea of what parts of planar lore matter to people. Now, I might not agree with whatever the prevailing sentiments might say, but I'll guess that I'd be more satisfied with it.

I understand that they want to sort of simplify and focus on what makes things unique, and that's all well and good for crunch--but fluff needs to be non-contradictory with vast bodies of prior lore.

For instance, I need to see all of the exemplars. Okay, maybe not every little minor race that was ever mentioned. But we definitely need the main exemplars. That means archons, guardinals, eladrins to go with the modrons, slaadi, baatezu, yugoloths, and tanar'ri. We also need heirarch modrons. Now, I don't have the MM, but I also get the impression that while the devils and demons are pretty complete, the yugoloths have some holes in their ranks. (I might be wrong on that.)

Do I need all of that in the MM? No. But I am going to be displeased if the rest of it doesn't come out in a complete single volume. None of that 3e publishing crap where you scatter one type of guardinal here, and another there, and then just ignore one type entirely for instance.

I will say that I think they are trying. For instance, they put the Ethereal Plane back where it is supposed to be for purposes of planar connections, for which I am grateful.

I just feel (from what I've seen so far) that there are some questionable judgment calls when it comes to how to handle lore, which might have been addressed better with more extensive feedback from dedicated fan communities.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I don't like the Shadow Dragon is now a template that is added to a regular dragon.

I am glad that brought the Lamia back to it's original form.

Not sure I like the Kuo-toa lore about making up deities, unless that is old lore and I don't remember it.

I'm glad the duergar are no longer that stupid hellish race of dwarves with quills for beards.

Driders have gone back to being punished which is good.

 

[Li Shenron]

In the setting of my next campaign, it's because half-orcs are bred by the high elves from their orc and human slaves. Orcs make great cannon fodder for the elvish armies, but for their elite forces they want something smarter and more disciplined. Elf/orc hybrids, though... well, that just isn't done. Orcs are useful on the battlefield, but what self-respecting elf would want to sleep with one?

(I got really, really tired of high elves being Tolkien rip-offs, so I decided to make them Moorcock rip-offs instead. Melnibonelves. )

That's definitely quite original!

I am pretty tired myself of the old half-orc concept, to the point that generally I always cross my fingers that nobody wants to play a half-orc so that I can pretend they don't exist.

OTOH I often hear people wanting to play an orc, but almost always because they have in mind WoW orcs, not D&D or Tolkien orcs.

Therefore for a while I've been thinking if I could just treat D&D Half-orcs as WoW orcs. I might keep the original idea of half-orc = 50% human + 50% orc, but instead of handling this on an individual basis (i.e. one parent per race), I will try to say that's a property of the half-orc race as a whole, or a legend about their ancient origin, and the 3 races are in fact currently completely separate.

 

[jadrax]

This particular bit of 5e lore regarding the 'loths solidly conflicts with the stated intention of 5e embracing D&D's history and past editions' material. It's really disappointing for me, right up there with the 5e tiefling.

The article "Pox of the Planes" in Dragon Annual #2 (1997) described the night hags as the creators of the altraloths, powerful unique yugoloths.

 

[Shemeska]

The article "Pox of the Planes" in Dragon Annual #2 (1997) described the night hags as the creators of the altraloths, powerful unique yugoloths.

That was only a compact between 'loths and powerful hag cabals where the 'loth would gain power and a unique form (at the hags' expense iirc) in exchange for a period of service. But not even all unique 'loths were formed in that way. That actually was a big subplot of my story hour. But it's a big leap from that to the hags creating the 'loths in the first place. The 'loths predated mortal souls whereas the hags did not, so its really strange to see this be 5e's take when they had an hour intricate origin myth already in place in 2e and 3e.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

I am with Shemeska on all things D&D lore.

I want Anthraxus back!

 

[Shemeska]

I am with Shemeska on all things D&D lore.

I can get behind this statement

 

[Quickleaf]

MM says "it is widely believed" that basically Asmodeus commissioned a group of night hags in Gehenna to create them. He wanted an army of fiends not bound to the Nine Hells.

Common traits (I didn't see them listed ala 3.x so I did a quick comparison of the four in the MM):

Damage Resistances = cold, fire, lightning; bludgeoning, piercing, slashing from nonmagical weapons
Damage Immunities = acid, poison
Condition Immunities = poisoned

All four in the MM have telepathy (to either 60 ft or 120 ft). All speak at least Abyssal and Infernal.

Traits
Innate spellcasting, magic resistance (advantage on saves against spells and magical effects), magic weapons (creature's weapon attacks are treated as magical).

Actions = Each one can teleport up to 60 feet.

Thanks for this Scott! Just sitting down to do my conversion of the yagnoloth & marraenoloth, and I'm wondering are there common spells all yugoloths get innate access to? Or is it completely unique by type?

For example in 2e they all got: alter self, animate dead, cause disease (reverse of cure disease), charm person, improved phantasmal force, produce flame, and teleport without error.

Sounds like in 5e they all get teleport as movement...but any other spells in common?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Thanks for this Scott! Just sitting down to do my conversion of the yagnoloth & marraenoloth, and I'm wondering are there common spells all yugoloths get innate access to? Or is it completely unique by type?

For example in 2e they all got: alter self, animate dead, cause disease (reverse of cure disease), charm person, improved phantasmal force, produce flame, and teleport without error.

Sounds like in 5e they all get teleport as movement...but any other spells in common?

Not really they tend to do their own thing.

Cantrips: fire bolt, mage hand, minor illusion, prestidigitation1st level (4 slots): detect magic, identify, shield, Tenser's floating disk
2nd level (3 slots): detect thoughts, mirror image, phantasmal force, suggestion
3rd level (3 slots): counterspell, fear, fireball
4th level (3 slots): banishment, dimension door
5th level (2 slots): contact other plane, hold monster
6th level (1 slot): chain lightning
7th level (1 slot): finger of death
8th level (1 slot): mind blank

2/day each: darkness, dispel magic 1/day: cloudkill

At will: darkness, detect magic, dispel magic, invisibility (self only), mirror image

At will: alter self, clairvoyance, darkness, detect magic, detect thoughts, dispel magic, invisibility (self only), suggestion 3/day each: dimension door, fear, wall of fire 1/day each: fire storm, mass suggestion

The Nycaloth also the cool power to teleport in place of one of his attacks during multiattack. I will be houserulling the Ultroloth so has the same feature.