D&D (2024) Monster manual Fey video up

[Azzy]

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.

One thing that always gets me is that WotC uses the spelling "fey" which is a word with a completely different meaning. It should be "fay" or "fae".

 

[Micah Sweet]

The lich in the original 5e Monster Manual had the Paralyzing Touch spell attack. However, it’s not a spell available to the PCs. Since you care about verisimilitude so much, whenever the first time you came across that obvious error, did you immediately homebrew a Paralyzing Touch spell for your players to learn once they ran into the lich.

What about the Necromancer from Volo’s Withering Touch melee spell attack? Or the Dusk Hag’s Nightmare Touch? Why aren’t there rules for turning yourself into a lich or creating a Beholder Zombie? Hell, why are spellcasting monsters held to this standard, but martial ones aren’t? Why can’t a Fighter learn to use the Knight monster’s Leadership action? Or the Tribal Warrior’s Pack Tactics? Or the Bandit Captain’s multiattack? Why does the breath weapon of a Drakewarden Ranger deal less damage than a typical dragon breath? Why are the Assassin’s attacks automatically and permanently covered in poison that deals 7d6 poison damage if you fail a Con save? Isn’t it unfair to the Rogue that they can’t learn to do that? Why do monsters get Legendary and Lair actions but the PCs don’t? It’s not consistent or verisimilitudious. That is what makes good game design according to you, right? Everything has to be internally consistent and follow the same rules?

Monsters and player characters do not follow the same rules in 5e and never have. I’m not sure if you haven’t noticed that before, but you’re not holding the original 5e books to the same standard you’re holding the newer ones to. And you’ve mentioned several times that you haven’t read the newer books. You won’t even watch these videos about the newer books to hear their explanations for the changes and their design philosophy, yet you spend so much time complaining about them in these threads.

Yes, 5e always had this sort of spell attack that the PCs couldn’t learn. Yes, post-MotM 5e has more spell attacks for NPC spellcasters that the PCs can’t learn than it did before. No, Monsters and PCs do not use the same rules. No, internal consistency doesn’t make good monster design. I’m glad that I don’t have to ask my players for the Player’s Handbook to look up a spell in the middle of combat as much as I used to using the older version of monster spellcasting.

All of those things are available in various 3pp I own, and yes I do use them as appropriate, or homebrew my own as necessary.

Yes, I do practice what I preach. Do you have a reason to assume I don't?

 

[Micah Sweet]

You tell me, you are the one with the problem it seems with monsters becoming Fey?

I see no game or design benefit to it, which means to me this is a "If it ain't broke" situation.

 

[Reynard]

I don't expect it to be a problem, mechanically, if they actually provide the species templates. My issue with all this simply that the creature type change only makes sense to me as motivated by forces outside the game, and I'm irritated that WotC won't admit to it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "motivated by forces outside the game."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Better than spending $50 on a book I probably won't use.

Probably.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure what you mean by "motivated by forces outside the game."

I don't want to get into it beyond suggesting that I don't think most of this creature type stuff would be happening if there wasn't a good amount of community and social media activity in recent years about the place of orcs and drow in D&D.

 

[dave2008]

They could admit that their design choices are affected by forces outside design and the game itself.

Even if that is largely untrue? What you are really saying is: they need to admit what you believe to be true is in fact true (even if it is not) for you to believe them.

 

[Reynard]

I don't want to get into it beyond suggesting that I don't think most of this creature type stuff would be happening if there wasn't a good amount of community and social media activity in recent years about the place of orcs and drow in D&D.

I don't know how much a motivating factor that is. Making Bullywugs fey doesn't seem to have any sort of benefit from that perspective.

I prefer to believe them when they say that they were looking at ways to balance out the creature types.

 

[dave2008]

I understand it's hard to express one's disagreement with the majority without it coming off as a value judgement, but it isn't.

That is very difficult. Just realize that, and I know it is not your intent (we've conversed enough at this point), your post(s) come off that way.

 

[Chaltab]

I'm not sure what you mean by "motivated by forces outside the game."

Combined with the changes to humanoids using generic stat blocks modified by race, it seems pretty clear that this is in part a way to avoid the baggage of having humanoids innately tied to an alignment. Githyanki can be typically lawful evil if they're aberrations. Githzerai can be typically chaotic neutral if they're aberrations. Gnolls can be typically chaotic evil if they're fiends. Goblinoids as fey can be tied to an alignment in a way that feels iffy for goblinoids that are just folk.