D&D (2024) Monster manual Fey video up

[I'm A Banana]

'When you're a player, you've lost some of your feyness and become humanoid."

That's just garbage, and a dumb, shortsighted, destuctive approach to game design.

So exactly at what point does a goblin PC 'lose their feyness'? Do they notice? Does anyone else notice? If my goblin PC has an NPC identical twin brother who he grew up with, was apprenticed to the same wizardly master to learn magic, etc etc - what happened to cause the 'loss of feyness'.

This is one of those rules design decisions that is destructive to the integrity of the game world. It introduces all sorts of immersion-breaking questions and inconsistencies. If the rules descrive the world poorly, you should be changing the rules, not the world.

I think there might be a bit of nuance lost here.

When I read the first sentence, I read "players can't be fey," which feels deeply limiting. But the idea of there being forthcoming species that aren't humanoid implies that there's nothing inherently taboo about non-humanoid PC's. That's good. Non-humanoid PC's are an important bit of player kit in many settings. I'm inclined to believe that while a humanoid species might have lost some feyness (ie, the existing goblin PC option), you don't HAVE to lose some feyness to be a PC goblin. You can also have a goblin species for PC use that is fey, and that'd be fine, too.

What I'm hearing overall here is more like.... that "goblin" and "fey" are two circles in a venn diagram with some overlap. But "goblin" can overlap with other types, too. Fey, fiend, humanoid, and aberration are the ones that stand out as likely, but the idea of a goblin with, say, the Beast type...well, it certainly sparks the imagination (wereworgs!). And when expanded beyond goblin, you could imagine, say, githyanki with the Dragon type (infused with DRAGON BLOOD), or orcs or goliaths with the Giant type, etc. And these may or may not be PC options depending on what kind of product we're referencing and the creature's role in the setting, etc.

So your typical old school humanoid goblins still exist in the world. But also, the goblins in the MM are Fey that emphasize that Feyness. They can exist alongside humanoid goblins, without changing those humanoid goblins. Both kinds are there.

To me, that's pretty smart design, especially for an edition change that's backwards compatible. Allowing a diversity of definitions, while emphasizing the one that works best for the stories you have in store, is a pretty clever way of validating those who are keeping things unchanged, but also charting a new trajectory that you're excited about.

Not that I'm not still salty about other GLARING OMISSIONS with 5.24. But this particular element seems better thought out than it might seem on the surface.

 

[Blue]

For PC species that are fey (or abberation, or anything else) in the MM but humanoid in the PHB: 'When you're a player, you've lost some of your feyness and become humanoid."

This is like playable Centaurs being medium-sized pony people. "Oh no, we didn't give enough design space to races to make unusual ones, so they all need to drift to least common denominator and become more boring."

This type of issue is easily solvable with the slightest forethought. Or reflection, since WotC hit into this with races expanding the 2014 rules so they completely knew about it. This has been one of my pet peeves for years, that all species are a small deal, and that stops making unusual ones.

Can we get an actual new edition like next year? Like laugh and show that this whole 2024 was a prank done in the spare time and a staff of 30+ veteran designers has been actually making a real next generation of D&D?

 

[Parmandur]

I was referring to how the original 5e Monster Manual discusses the Tarrasque, which it definitely describes as singular. It's called "the legendary tarrasque" and it's said that it's widely believed to be the only one in existence. I am aware of the Tarrasque Planet from Spelljammer and that there's a female Tarrasque in the Forgotten Realms for instance. But the only monster in the original 5e Monster Manual that is described as an individual instead of a set of monsters is the Tarrasque.

And that is an OG throwback, both to AD&D and the Tarrasque of French folklore which was a unique entity.

 

[Chaltab]

Can we get an actual new edition like next year? Like laugh and show that this whole 2024 was a prank done in the spare time and a staff of 30+ veteran designers has been actually making a real next generation of D&D?

Or just play a different game. There are loads of designers doing innovative takes on systems in the same genre. 5E is clearly working for WOTC and it's ridiculous to think they're gonna change it at this point.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I was referring to how the original 5e Monster Manual discusses the Tarrasque, which it definitely describes as singular. It's called "the legendary tarrasque" and it's said that it's widely believed to be the only one in existence. I am aware of the Tarrasque Planet from Spelljammer and that there's a female Tarrasque in the Forgotten Realms for instance. But the only monster in the original 5e Monster Manual that is described as an individual instead of a set of monsters is the Tarrasque.

Lying to readers in the Monster Manual is as old as Monster Manuals.

 

[Leatherhead]

This thing about what is humanoid and what's not humanoid is getting far too complicated for anyone's good.

So. PCs have to be humanoid, even when they are ostensibly the same species as their non-humanoid cousins, because they are lesser than their relatives for arbitrary reasons?

But also, in a yet to be announced book, we are going to have more non-humanoid PCs, so this pretzel making is all pointless anyway?

The worst part about this, is that they already had the solution for this particular problem back in MotM: Just use more creature tags! There is no grand arbitration that says a goblin can't be both fey and a humanoid at the same time.

 

[Chaltab]

Lying to readers in the Monster Manual is as old as Monster Manuals.

I mean bare minimum you'd have to assume that Oerth, Toril, and Krynn all have their own Tarrasque.

...Unless it can shunt itself across space

 

[dave2008]

I guess? I don't know, I remember awesome articles in Dragon Magazine about how different the nonhuman races/species were, with lots of pointers on how to play it up, and my players always leaned into that kind of thing. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man, but this really seems like a more modern thing to me.

It is not new. D&D has historically been a local game and different people play differently. I mean the whole tournament style of play was a thing and a doubt that style involved a lot of exploration into species differences.

I know from my games in the late 80's early 90's that my players mostly looked species as kits of parts. However, when I introduced mu children and their friends to D&D (4e) they didn't care a lick about the mechanical differences, they just wanted to play a lizard person or dragon person or snake person.

So a lot of factors go into how one interacts with the game.

 

[Bae'zel]

That's just garbage, and a dumb, shortsighted, destuctive approach to game design.

There’s that internet hyperbole that I was looking for! Not just “i don’t like it” but that it’s full on “destructive” to the game.

Change it. WotC’s rules police won’t come knocking at your door if you modify things.

Or, you know, play one of the other 10,000 RPgs out there.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is like playable Centaurs being medium-sized pony people. "Oh no, we didn't give enough design space to races to make unusual ones, so they all need to drift to least common denominator and become more boring."

This boils down to 5.24 being designed with a certain impact budget in mind. Being Fey probably isn't a dealbreaker for PC's, but being Large is a significant mechanical change that just blows being a halfling out of the water in terms of its impact on gameplay.

I don't know if WotC has any plans on threading this needle, but I think they are aware of their choices, and probably are aware that some folks want a species with a bigger impact on play (things like Large size, or detailed ability suites). I do wonder how they might get the impact budget for something like this. Maybe background? Maybe some sort of "alternate level 1"? Or maybe they'll just do nothing about it.