D&D 5E (2024) Monster manual Fey video up

[MonsterEnvy]

This influence seems obvious to me. Persisting in not acknowledging it seems disingenuous to me.

Maybe watch the videos and learn what they actually say.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I do miss alignment, but if you're going to insist it has to have more meaning than what cosmic team you've joined up with, I can take it or leave it.

You miss something still in the game?

 

[I'm A Banana]

So you're saying suspicion shouldn't be a thing? We should always accept marketing copy at face value, no matter what reason we might have to think otherwise?

It's OK to mistrust the messaging. I'd even suspect that you're right that part of why they wanted to be looser with typing is that it's easier to show that not all creatures of a given name are a monolith.

But they don't need to confess this to the public as if they're apologizing for something. There's a lot of design influences they don't talk about. It's not nefarious.

And there's plenty of room for new fey monsters in this new MM. Plenty of precedent from previous editions for them too. Aren't there like 85 new statblocks in there? Was it instead necessary to switch several existing monsters out of humanoid for this purpose, while not doing so for their PC equivalents?

The monsters are not being switched out of humanoid. In the video, it is directly stated that the new typing doesn't affect creatures already in the game. Humanoid goblins are part of the game.

The edition refresh is showing that fey goblins are ALSO part of the game.

If you've got a problem with what's actually happening, that could be an interesting thing to chat about, but if you've just got a problem with imaginary consequences and unstated motives, then you are inventing a reason to be upset. Touch some grass, pet a dog, and consider what your real problems might be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You miss something still in the game?

I miss alignment having more of a presence in the game, like in the TSR days.

 

[Remathilis]

I miss alignment having more of a presence in the game, like in the TSR days.

Ah yes.

You helped save an orphanage? Good job..But since you're chaotic neutral, you can't gain any more XP until you atone with a CN priest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah yes.

You helped save an orphanage? Good job..But since you're chaotic neutral, you can't gain any more XP until you atone with a CN priest.

...OK. You're welcome to bag on it all you want, but I liked alignment when it was a more important part of the game.

 

[Mecheon]

To drag things back from alignment

What benefit does it have? Are there too few fey creatures?

Generally D&D's been pretty low with actually hostile Fey creatures. The closest have been Fomorian which, well, haven't been treated as Fey, they've always been Giants, and Hags haven't been Fey for the longest time either.

More things under the Fey label does give more room for building thematic encounters. You need minions for Balor the Fomorian king? Look at the nasty Fey stuff and pick some out appropriately. Previously stuff mixed in fiends for their dark fey or were just lazy with the "Okay you can use an evil dryad, an evil satyr and.... A redcap and a quickling (they're both evil brownies, except the quickling is fast)", meanwhile goblins got left in the trashbin of "We need a low level mook and they are eternally this" despite, y'know, pop culture stuff and Labyrinth

So are dragons, monstrosities, aberrations, undead, giants, elementals, fiends, constructs, plants and beasts.

Fey get a whole Shakespheran play about them. We really arguing Fey don't have massive chops in western mythology?

Dragons are not the core of western mythology, though they are a primarily source for French town myths, but once you get outside of the Tarrasque and St John they're kind of non-existent
Monstrosities have no unifiying features, they are not the core of western mythology
Aberrations sure aren't the core of western mythology, they weren't invented for years later
Undead have some showings but they're associated more as threats and not grand mythologising
Giants I'll give you a few appearances in western mythology, but they're generally limited appearances outside of being one of the Paladins and the eternal enemies of Don Quixote, but how many appearances in Shakesphere's works do they get compared to the fey?
Elementals, you might get away with saying Ariel is one but can you exclude him from being Fey all the same?
Fiends is another one I'd put with undead in terms of being seen as a threat and not something being told stories about
Constructs are not a core of western mythology. They got a fair few more showings than a few of these others, with the Golem, Talos, Galatea and Frakenstein's Monster, but a core?
Plant monsters are not the core of western mythology, as fun a film Little Shop is
Beasts are not the core of western mythology and fit into that threat side of things

Fey are the ones who got fanciful stories told about them, rumours of their existence, and always existed at that periphery. Fey are the ones D&D's ignored for years despite what an easy wellspring it is to draw from, and how popular "Woops its the Fey but they're spooky now" is as a genre.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Fey get a whole Shakespheran play about them.

Two. The Tempest is the other one.

 

[Remathilis]

Two. The Tempest is the other one.

I can't believe my brain went straight to The Tempest and completely skipped over A Midsummer Nights Dream

 

[AlViking]

To drag things back from alignment

Generally D&D's been pretty low with actually hostile Fey creatures. The closest have been Fomorian which, well, haven't been treated as Fey, they've always been Giants, and Hags haven't been Fey for the longest time either.

More things under the Fey label does give more room for building thematic encounters. You need minions for Balor the Fomorian king? Look at the nasty Fey stuff and pick some out appropriately. Previously stuff mixed in fiends for their dark fey or were just lazy with the "Okay you can use an evil dryad, an evil satyr and.... A redcap and a quickling (they're both evil brownies, except the quickling is fast)", meanwhile goblins got left in the trashbin of "We need a low level mook and they are eternally this" despite, y'know, pop culture stuff and Labyrinth


Fey get a whole Shakespheran play about them. We really arguing Fey don't have massive chops in western mythology?

Dragons are not the core of western mythology, though they are a primarily source for French town myths, but once you get outside of the Tarrasque and St John they're kind of non-existent
Monstrosities have no unifiying features, they are not the core of western mythology
Aberrations sure aren't the core of western mythology, they weren't invented for years later
Undead have some showings but they're associated more as threats and not grand mythologising
Giants I'll give you a few appearances in western mythology, but they're generally limited appearances outside of being one of the Paladins and the eternal enemies of Don Quixote, but how many appearances in Shakesphere's works do they get compared to the fey?
Elementals, you might get away with saying Ariel is one but can you exclude him from being Fey all the same?
Fiends is another one I'd put with undead in terms of being seen as a threat and not something being told stories about
Constructs are not a core of western mythology. They got a fair few more showings than a few of these others, with the Golem, Talos, Galatea and Frakenstein's Monster, but a core?
Plant monsters are not the core of western mythology, as fun a film Little Shop is
Beasts are not the core of western mythology and fit into that threat side of things

Fey are the ones who got fanciful stories told about them, rumours of their existence, and always existed at that periphery. Fey are the ones D&D's ignored for years despite what an easy wellspring it is to draw from, and how popular "Woops its the Fey but they're spooky now" is as a genre.

Some people still believe in faeries and I agree that it's kind of odd how much they've been ignored. Goblins having a fey origin has always been a part of my lore. On the other hand cryptids like bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster and their many variants might qualify as monstrosities.