Evil Drow Statblocks to Return in Forgotten Realms Rulebooks Later This Year

Drow-specific NPC statblocks will be included in the upcoming Forgotten Realms Adventurer's Guide set for release later this year. Over the past several weeks, much hullabaloo has been made over the Monster Manual, specifically that the D&D design team replaced specific drow and orc statblocks with generic NPC statblocks that can be used for any kind of humanoids. In a video released today, D&D lead designer Jeremy Crawford confirmed that more specific statblocks tied to specific humanoid sects or characters would return in future rulebooks, with evil drow given as an example.

"Also for anyone who's eager to see more species-tailored humanoid statblocks, people are going to see more of that in our setting books," Crawford said. "You're going to see that in our Forgotten Realms products, for example. The malevolent drow of Menzoberranzan are an important part of that setting and so they get their own statblocks. This is really true of all the creatures in the Monster Manual. This is your massive starting toy box of monsters that are usable anywhere in the multiverse. The bestiaries in our setting products, that's where we can provide you versions of things tailored to the cultures and histories of our different worlds."

 

[Chaosmancer]

I wonder if they're going to pull in the drow stat blocks from MotM as well, since at some point (hopefully relatively soon)* they will want to update that book to 2024 standards as well, and the drow (and duergar, for that matter) stat blocks won't fit in with the current paradigm. Instead of cutting them entirely, it would make sense to move them to the FR bestiary with the ones from the MM.

*Note that while they added quite a few Humanoid stat blocks to the new MM, they did not bring any over from MotM, although they would be quite useful. Presumably they are saving them for an updated MotM.

They've indicated a few times that the MotM was fairly close to their current math and style, and there is no reason to update it any time soon. Likely will be years if they ever end up bothering.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sort if a Wood Between Worlds...?

View attachment 396698

Not quite, as I understand that is a place where the pools are worlds.

More like, a forest of Yggdrasil Trees, each tree's fruit being different worlds, with patterns emerging from that.

 

[Parmandur]

Not quite, as I understand that is a place where the pools are worlds.

More like, a forest of Yggdrasil Trees, each tree's fruit being different worlds, with patterns emerging from that.

The children focus on the pools, but given Lewis' obsession with Norse mythology, it wouldnsurpruse me if they missed the forest for the trees there.

 

[Azzy]

Plane, is D&D language, it makes enough sense for what its talking about.

Multiverse is D&D language, too.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't hate Disney's work, at all. No one benefits from assumptions. I just prefer it when what I see as blatant marketing choices are admitted to, or convincingly refuted.

Okay. Let’s assume you’re right, and the only reason why WotC has began to emphasize the “multiverse” aspect of the game’s settings is because of the increased frequency of the term’s use in pop culture, like superhero movies.

So what? Oh my God, who cares? If a word, which has been used in D&D for longer than I’ve been alive and is absolutely an appropriate term, makes a comeback because other media has been using it more; why on Earth would anyone get upset about that?

This is quite possibly the most applicable case of “it’s just an elf game.” There is literally no reason for you or anyone else to be complaining about this. If Marvel made a detective movie and so WotC decided to make a detective adventure in Eberron or something to ride on the popularity of the movie . . . how would that be a bad thing?

“But they won’t admit to it-“ Again, why does that matter? If MCDM, Kobold Press, or EN5ider published an article/book with Fey options after Witchlight came out because of the book’s release but didn’t mention the adventure in their marketing, would that be evil, or sinister, or bad in some way? Do companies and creatives have to credit literally everything that inspired their work?

You seem to feel some moral outrage at nearly anything WotC does, especially if you think it makes them money.

Seriously, this is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve seen on this site. This is dumb because of what everyone else has said about the term being used in D&D for decades, but moreso because if you’re right, there’s still nothing to complain about.

 

[Jaeger]

It's not the same situation. TSR was releasing multiple settings as completely separate product lines along with dozens of products for each setting.

...
That's not to say that things are fine now; I don't know what WOTCs financials look like. It's just not a directly analogous situation to what killed TSR.

Of course it's not the same situation. 5e is in a very different place financially. They are not going under anytime soon...

But they are signaling that they will do a number of settings with support:

Setting books
Setting Products
Multiverse
Different worlds

A much different proposition that the one or two and done member-berry releases they have put out for 5e.

The number of 'competing settings' was specifically and repeatedly called out as "dividing the fanbase" in the 2e era.

Why do it now when it has been cited by WotC employees as a product line no, no, for two decades?

 

[Chaltab]

words

It remains to be seen if they're going to divide the fanbase but I've seen nothing to indicate the plan is anything close to what they did during the TSR era. Even if you 'support' settings, releasing 5 books a year is not nearly as burdensome as trying to cover multiple settings with 30+ books a year, or however many TSR was doing.

Or to put it another way: dividing the fanbase is only a problem if you can't move the product. Dividing consumers demographically is something that corporations have been doing for decades to great success (and often to the deteriment of consumers, but that's another discussion.) What remains to be seen is if the choice to support more settings pays off.

 

[Jaeger]

more words

Yet for two decades WotC went around telling everyone; multiple settings = product line no,no.

But now: "It'll be ok because we're doing it..."

That being said; I absolutely agree that it remains to be seen is if the choice to support more settings pays off.

 

[Chaltab]

Yet for two decades WotC went around telling everyone; multiple settings = product line no,no.

But now: "It'll be ok because we're doing it..."

That being said; I absolutely agree that it remains to be seen is if the choice to support more settings pays off.

I'm saying you're misinterpreting the lesson learned. Multiple settings isn't a bad thing. Multiple mutually exclusive product lines that they couldn't sell because they were largely incompatible was the problem.

In point of fact, WOTC has been supporting multiple settings with all its editions. Third edition had Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Rokugan, Eberron, Ravenloft, Kalamar, and Ghostwalk. And 4E had Nentir Vale, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun during its relatively short run.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yet for two decades WotC went around telling everyone; multiple settings = product line no,no.

But now: "It'll be ok because we're doing it..."

That being said; I absolutely agree that it remains to be seen is if the choice to support more settings pays off.

Yeah, except that isn't what WotC said when discussing what killed TSR.

It isn't multiple settings, it's multiple product lines.