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."

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I had this thought as well, buuut I guess the caveat here is that it's not in a book called "monster manual," you're not calling them monsters? I know, flimsy, but I have to imagine that that has to be their excuse for not including them in the MM.

I'm not even sure if they know why they removed them to be honest.

 

[Chaltab]

"more overall statblocks" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that assertion. If it has fewer statblocks that I need in my campaign then it is of less utility? If I gave you a Monster Manual with 10,000 statblocks that are say, all varieties of pirates, would you say that has more or less utility than the current Monster Manual?

That might be a reasonable criticism if it weren't a complete hypothetical.

Like I get not liking the omissions but this is just ridiculous.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

That might be a reasonable criticism if it weren't a complete hypothetical.

Like I get not liking the omissions but this is just ridiculous.

Sometimes a bit of absurdity to illustrate a point is warranted.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Sometimes a bit of absurdity to illustrate a point is warranted.

It seems like a poor point.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, not having the books would make it difficult to make judgments about them, but it hasn't stopped you or many other people.

I've been going off of what the designers have been releasing and the snippets posted here. There have been no judgements by me that were not based on the books. That's why I asked you those questions instead of jumping to judgment.

And if you prefer, Fizban's has three dragonborn subraces, one for chromatic, metallic, and gem -descended dragonborn, and each has a distinct species feature (all are different from the 5.5 dragonborn too). So, at the very least there are four distinct subraces of dragonborn by your definition.

That's fair. I forgot about Fizban's having them in it.

 

[AK81]

A multiverse has multiple universes, each with their own history that differ in some ways but are otherwise quite familiar.

Actually this is how I prefer to think about the dnd multiverse. A Infinite strings of universes that are similar but not exactly the same.
This fits well with every table having their own canon at their table. Thousands of different Forgotten realms or Eberrons, or home brew worlds with different histories but many of the same creatures and species.

I know it's not exactly DnD canon, but I like it much better. So that's how I choose to see the multiverse

 

[Maxperson]

Actually this is how I prefer to think about the dnd multiverse. A Infinite strings of universes that are similar but not exactly the same.
This fits well with every table having their own canon at their table. Thousands of different Forgotten realms or Eberrons, or home brew worlds with different histories but many of the same creatures and species.

I know it's not exactly DnD canon, but I like it much better. So that's how I choose to see the multiverse

It kinda is canon. This is from the 1e DMG

"The Known Planes of Existence, as depicted in APPENDIX IV of the PLAYERS HANDBOOK, offer nearly endless possibilities for AD&D play, although some of these new realms will no longer be fantasy as found in swords & sorcery or myth but verge an that of science fiction, horror, or lust about anything else desired. How so? The known planes are a part of the "multiverse". In the Prime Material Plane are countless suns, planets, galaxies, universes. So too there are endless parallel worlds. What then of the Outer Planes? Certainly, they can be differently populated if not substantially different in form."

Endless parallel worlds means endless versions of the Forgotten Realms and Eberron.

2e took it even further.

"At the very center of this series of spheres are the Prime Material plane. These are the planes most familiar
to AD&D same players. The Prime Material planes Include the many Earth-like alternate worlds and campaigns that operate from the more or less the same basic realities."

 

[Chaltab]

In my Spelljammer game I actually had my party encounter themselves from a parallel world where all their lives had gone very differently. The monk was a vampire, the wizard was just hired muscle, the Warlock was a Paladin under a guy she hated in the main timeline, etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

While it doesn't really matter, the question I would have would be when did they start using "multiverse"? After a quick search, I see that DC comic books started using the idea of different versions of earth back in the 40s and of course we had Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1985. But did they use the term multiverse? Did Moorcock or Zelazny? I mean I remember reading Aasimov (Heinlen? Both?) that talked about multiple versions of reality. Some variation of the idea of an alternative world is probably as old as humanity.

You are probably thinking of The Cat Who Walks through Walls by Heinlen. Published in 1985, that would be too late.

It was Moorcock who actually used the word "Multiverse". He and Zelazny are both mentioned in the original appendix N, and were both dealing with similar themes (Law vs. Chaos as well as many worlds) at around the same time. It is likely they were familiar with each others work and kind of bounced ideas between each other. Did they meet? It's not impossible.

CS Lewis is the most interesting, in that he is conspicuously absent from Appendix N, but got there earlier (The Magicians Nephew 1955), and introduced the idea of the a "transitive" plane that connected many worlds. The Wood Between Worlds looks like a prototype of the D&D Astral Plane. The novel also visits a dying world with a "Dark Sun".

 

[Chaltab]

CS Lewis was doing kitchen sink fantasy before kitchen sink fantasy was a thing.