D&D (2024) Monster manual Fey video up

I agree some magic is not learnable by PCs. However, if something is a spell I am willing to allow it to be learned. It is not automatic though. The PC has to spend money and time (downtime) to research the spell and then succeed on crafting the spell. Depending on the source of the spell that could be relatively easy or very difficult.
As I stated in another thread, if a PC tries to learn the strange secrets of some alien wizard that they fought, i would absolutely indulge that because I like it when players get engaged with the world. But there is nothing inherently correct or right about the notion that all magic works the same and players should have access to whatever NPCs can do.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I do not subscribe to the notion that PCs should be automatically allowed to learn any spell, feat or ability just because an NPC or monster has access to it. It does not break "setting logic" for there to be Draconic Magic or Aberrant Psionics or Wemic Kung-Fu whatever that are only available to those alien minds and bodies.
Agreed, but if a player did commit substantial story and resources towards such study, I would be inclined to have them learn some new stuff based off of those alien minds and bodies.


Maybe thats how psionics started in humans in the first place...
 

Probably a few reasons, but the one they give in the video is narrative.

Creature type tells a deliberate story in this version of the game. Something about where your magic comes from or why you are the way you are. So if you say your character is a humanoid, that means something specific. It sounds like it means something like "they are basically like humans, with maybe a few little tweaks." So to say that a goblin or a githzerai is humanoid is kind of to say, "this creature is from the material world and doesn't have more than a shadow of inherent magic and raises families and eats food and survives much like a real world human does. Not exactly the same, but close enough that the difference is a little subtle."

In comparison, you have your fey goblins, which are of the feywild, inherently magical in a big way, capable of inherent trickery and illusion that humanoid goblins aren't capable of without studying magic (say by becoming an illusionist). They do not live lives like people do. They dwell in the graces of the courts of the Feywild, where time flows different and the stars come down to play.

I'd also wager that, mechanically, it means "You can use our 'generic NPC' stat blocks for those, with an extra trait or two. A humanoid goblin knight isn't much different from a human knight or a dwarven knight - not in a way that would impact CR or anything. Add a quirk or two from the species traits and run with it." In comparison, a fey goblin is its own thing. Not a knight or a guard or a commoner or whatever, but a creature whose magic defines its capabilities more strongly.

I can imagine a fey goblin that's still balanced as a PC species, but it might have a different set of abilities than the humanoid goblin that's already in the game - more magical, more dramatic. Maybe (and this is speculation) more powerful because it also eats up your Background or something.
Well said.
 

The charming art is what they want everyone to focus on.
I don't necessarily agree with that. There's been plenty of info released regarding the stat blocks and features of the new books.

I assume that the art appears in the videos to break up the visual monotony of "here's three people talking", as well as piquing interest.

I do find art to be somewhat important in my games, but I understand and accept that others don't see it that way.
 

By that logic, all monsters should be fey.
it seems the designers are going that way with goblins and bugbears and wargs, so maybe? Why not Fey Ogres and fey Trolls, fey Dragons, fey Wolves, fey Otyugh

though I do wonder with Wargs being fey now, what happens to the Yeth hounds
 


I do not subscribe to the notion that PCs should be automatically allowed to learn any spell, feat or ability just because an NPC or monster has access to it. It does not break "setting logic" for there to be Draconic Magic or Aberrant Psionics or Wemic Kung-Fu whatever that are only available to those alien minds and bodies.
Sure, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the idea that an NPC Archmage has an "arcane blast" that a PC can't learn because it's presented as a monster feature in the statblock, not a spell.
 

As I stated in another thread, if a PC tries to learn the strange secrets of some alien wizard that they fought, i would absolutely indulge that because I like it when players get engaged with the world. But there is nothing inherently correct or right about the notion that all magic works the same and players should have access to whatever NPCs can do.
I believe they should potentially have that access if the NPC is the same kind of creature.
 

So they love them because you love them?

No, because its central to the basis, the foundation, of the game. Fey, Fairy Tales, the original stories of little people, talking animals, and the like, are very much Fey in origin.

Its core, its basic tropes, you couldnt pull it out of Fantasy as a genre, from a western definition.
 


Remove ads

Top