D&D 5E Kobolds are also from the Feywild now?

[Voadam]

Was that your typo, their typo, or a never-seen-again crossbreed race? Because knowing D&D, hoblins could be a legitimate monster.

Theirs.

Thouls were the archetypal typo that became a full (nonsensical) monster.

 

[cbwjm]

Another option: they were, in fact, considering making kobolds originate from the Feywild at one point during development of MOTM, but backed off on the idea.

Well that doesn't sound like them at all...

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

And you think that this is a change from what was happening before?

Yep. Lore changes is one thing, purging lore altogether is something else.

 

[Hussar]

Yep. Lore changes is one thing, purging lore altogether is something else.

That's not what they're doing though. What they are doing is similar to how Star Wars is treating Lore. They are saying that they might contradict anything from earlier D&D at any point in time, but, they will be drawing from it as well.

It's not like they are rewriting the entirety of D&D lore. They just aren't going to be beholden to it.

About bloody time to be honest.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

That's not what they're doing though. What they are doing is similar to how Star Wars is treating Lore. They are saying that they might contradict anything from earlier D&D at any point in time, but, they will be drawing from it as well.

It's not like they are rewriting the entirety of D&D lore. They just aren't going to be beholden to it.

About bloody time to be honest.

So we basically have Schrödingers lore? That may be even worse than no lore.

 

[TwoSix]

So we basically have Schrödingers lore? That may be even worse than no lore.

No, it's better. The point of lore is to inspire concepts and campaign ideas for individual tables. Having more ideas gives more freedom to which ideas an individual table might implement.

There's very little value in enforcing some kind of lore consistency between disparate tables, or across the community as a whole. If I use book A's idea of kobolds being fey, it matters to my game not one iota if you use book B's idea of kobolds being the lineal descendants of dragons.

 

[Stormonu]

I still use a lot of the 1E/2E lore. Never embraced kobolds being “little dragons” much less associating them with the Feywild. They’re still vicious little miners who have an undying hatred of gnomes.

And my dwarves and elves don’t get along much either - thanks to gnomes (they each blame the other for them).

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

No, it's better. The point of lore is to inspire concepts and campaign ideas for individual tables. Having more ideas gives more freedom to which ideas an individual table might implement.

There's very little value in enforcing some kind of lore consistency between disparate tables, or across the community as a whole. If I use book A's idea of kobolds being fey, it matters to my game not one iota if you use book B's idea of kobolds being the lineal descendants of dragons.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that common lore acts as glue and common ground between tables, to make it easier for players - especially less experienced ones - to play in different games with different DMs. Then lore has much value.

Besides, if we can't argue about lore minutiae, how do we fill forums such as this with gazillions of words and endless threads ;-)

 

[Parmandur]

Yep. Lore changes is one thing, purging lore altogether is something else.

They haven't purged it, they have put what they were already doing in qn honest perspective.

 

[Parmandur]

So we basically have Schrödingers lore? That may be even worse than no lore.

It's what you had before. It's all made up, and neither TSR bor WotC have ever been any more consistent than what Perkins laid out last year.