Product page for Volo's Guide to Monsters updated

Oh that is a nice preface.

 

[PMárk]

No FRCG, the end of the novel line, releases turning into a dribble, bad decisions all. For the record I like 5e.

Same here. I might have some problems with 5e's system and design choices (like how abilities are more important than proficiency, or the scarcity of skills and how everyone could use everything), but overall, it's a good one. Not necessarily a better one than PF, but definitely a quicker-to-learn and easier to play and GMing, I'd never argue those are big selling points.

However:

1. Ending the novel line is a big, prime black spot on them to me.

2. The beginning of 5e was very promising, as it took the whole D&D multiverse as a core setting and incorporated it into the core books (with a disclaimer, see below). Then nothing. Not even a real CG for FR. Nothing for any other settings. Yes-yes, I could use old material, converting to 5e is easy, etc., the usual answers. Still it won't change the fact that we didn't see any new material to the other settings, advancing of timeline, novels, official stats (because, I don't have the time to convert everything). Nothing, and that doesn't seem to change in the foreseeable future.

D&D's big selling point is (for me at least) the multiverse, because one-by-one the campaign settings are somewhat restricted to certain themes and styles, even FR. With one setting, you could do certain things, with the multiverse, anything. I could understand why the old way of maintaining all of them on the same level isn't viable, but come on! There has to be some middle ground between everything and nothing! In the meantime, we get a new, shiny 250+ page mega-adventure every half a year, so it doesn't like they couldn't do books, they just don't want. So sorry, pointing to older material is just not a proof to me as the greatness of 5e. It's accentuating of how great times were then, from a creative and fan standpoint and how sparse and anemic is the present. They could even source out their settings, like with the 3e RL, but no. Instead we got the DM'sG with it's uncontrolled and unnoficial materials (and I don't say there isn't good things out there, there is and a plenty of capable writers, but still, the point stands).

3. The disclaimer. I actually dislike what they did with Ravenloft. CoS may be a great adventure, but the whole 4e paradigm of the individual Domains of Dread and the representation of Barovia in CoS and Strahd himself are just killed one of my favorite settings. Again, they just wanted to milk the cash-cow, redoing the original module, then throwing out the window everything that came later and made it to a fan-favorite setting. I can't really understand what made them do it this way, the Hickmans, or Perkins just doesn't like the RL setting. I just really-really bugged by the results. I thought they had enough with burning bridges in 4e.

So in the end, the handling of 5e (and i don't blame the D&D staff here, I think they would do more if they could) might be viable from a purely financial standpoint, but McDonald's also makes money and a lot of people eating there, sometimes including myself. That doesn't make it a great restaurant as the quality and variation of their foods goes. Also, the succes of 5e is IMO more due to how well the corebooks were written and not to the current state of things.

I was highly enthusiastic for 5e. But as time went on, i realized, if I want a really supported game, If i want to read novels, If i want a supported campaign setting (PF might have only one world, but it has basically everything that D&D did with a whole multiverse and a lot more - however i still miss RL, or Speljammer, or Planescape, even with their incorporated elements and themes in Golarion), adventures with much larger variety as themes goes, or more player options, with fresh and excting classes, i just better go back to Pathfinder than waiting for something that won't happen from WotC.

As a sidenote: it's somewhat strange to me that the discussions almost always boiling down to the system differences between 5e and PF and how 5e is more friendly to beginners and easier to run, but the above case of settings rarely comes up. Might be that the main audience here is more homebrew-centric. Might be that Paizo still has it's own messageboards, unlike WotC, so people who like the setting and the game convergate there. For me, that was much more important, than any system difference, because if i absolutely want, I could run Golarion with 5e, but it's still ending in buying much more products from Paizo than from WotC, after the corebooks. So for me, 5e started with great promises, then left me hanging out to dry, while Paizo still has stories i could read, a richly detailed and ongoing, living setting, with existing and new material which is compatible with the current system and a lot of options. That is infinitely more important to me than a somewhat more complex system.

 

[flametitan]

1. Ending the novel line is a big, prime black spot on them to me.

I still don't believe we know enough to treat this as a significant event. We know that Evans is ending her line, and that there's rumours that Greenwood and Salvatore are ending their lines, with a layer of NDA. We don't know if that means they're stopping novels entirely, or if there's simply a restructuring to it. Wait and see.

2. The beginning of 5e was very promising, as it took the whole D&D multiverse as a core setting and incorporated it into the core books (with a disclaimer, see below). Then nothing. Not even a real CG for FR. Nothing for any other settings. Yes-yes, I could use old material, converting to 5e is easy, etc., the usual answers. Still it won't change the fact that we didn't see any new material to the other settings, advancing of timeline, novels, official stats (because, I don't have the time to convert everything). Nothing, and that doesn't seem to change in the foreseeable future.

They've noted around release that they wouldn't be able to do a traditional campaign guide style release. The problem is that without advancing timelines or altering the setting there's nothing you can really add to a campaign setting aside from updating stats. If you just want fluff, it's already there. Even more importantly, there's wikis floating about collecting this information and putting into a single place that's (ideally) better organized than a book could ever be. For free.

And advancing the timeline's not always a good option either. Changes have to happen, moving years around doesn't make setting book B different from setting book A. And if you alter the setting to advance the timelines, you will upset somebody. The question is if more people are angered than people interested in your new book.

There were some lofty ideas for a campaign setting book that'd instead have branching timelines back in 2014, but I can't imagine how feasible that'd actually be.

D&D's big selling point is (for me at least) the multiverse, because one-by-one the campaign settings are somewhat restricted to certain themes and styles, even FR. With one setting, you could do certain things, with the multiverse, anything. I could understand why the old way of maintaining all of them on the same level isn't viable, but come on! There has to be some middle ground between everything and nothing! In the meantime, we get a new, shiny 250+ page mega-adventure every half a year, so it doesn't like they couldn't do books, they just don't want. So sorry, pointing to older material is just not a proof to me as the greatness of 5e. It's accentuating of how great times were then, from a creative and fan standpoint and how sparse and anemic is the present. They could even source out their settings, like with the 3e RL, but no. Instead we got the DM'sG with it's uncontrolled and unnoficial materials (and I don't say there isn't good things out there, there is and a plenty of capable writers, but still, the point stands).

There's a reason not to license out: WotC doesn't want to compete with itself. Too many books and you run the risk of overwhelming a new player. Too many books and you begin to splinter profit. And that splintered profit isn't going straight to wotc, either. Depending on the negotiated license, the people actually writing the books get a cut, too.

It's easier to write a book that's usable by most people than to risk splintering. Even if you don't run the adventure, the books wotc release are where the setting details you want are located, have new generic and specific monsters, and maps! The maps are a big sell for me, as it can be tedious to draw up your own.

So in the end, the handling of 5e (and i don't blame the D&D staff here, I think they would do more if they could) might be viable from a purely financial standpoint, but McDonald's also makes money and a lot of people eating there, sometimes including myself. That doesn't make it a great restaurant as the quality and variation of their foods goes. Also, the succes of 5e is IMO more due to how well the corebooks were written and not to the current state of things.

And I think that's how wotc wants things. The core is more important than the splat. If the core sells well, that means D&D has a wider audience, and that wider audience would look at D&D related items that aren't books. This is the net you want to spread, not settings. People aren't likely to buy from a lot of different settings, but they may be more willing to spend on D&D related merchandise.

As a sidenote: it's somewhat strange to me that the discussions almost always boiling down to the system differences between 5e and PF and how 5e is more friendly to beginners and easier to run, but the above case of settings rarely comes up.

I don't actually know how important setting is to most people compared to system. If people don't like the default setting for a system, it's all too easy to just remove it and make your own world. Likewise, if you don't have much in the way of brand loyalty, then it's just as easy to take a setting you like and then port it into a system you prefer.

I don't have any hard data, but I suspect that's why when people talk about 5e vs. pathfinder, setting doesn't come up.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I want good rules for spelljamming and all that.

I doubt we'll see that here, but I imagine that Spelljamming will be mentioned, in the very least obliquely, in the neogi section. As I've said before, I'm thinking that Volo will think neogi are somehow native to Toril, and we'll have a snarky Elminster footnote explaining their real origin.

 

[PMárk]

I still don't believe we know enough to treat this as a significant event. We know that Evans is ending her line, and that there's rumours that Greenwood and Salvatore are ending their lines, with a layer of NDA. We don't know if that means they're stopping novels entirely, or if there's simply a restructuring to it. Wait and see.

Yes, I agree on that. I don't want to believe they really ending the novel line for good. I hope they won't! But everything points to that, the authors' more or less said that and they ending well-running series with a lot of fans. Evans had to fight to be able to end the Brimstone Angels! All of that is not a good sign to me.

They've noted around release that they wouldn't be able to do a traditional campaign guide style release. The problem is that without advancing timelines or altering the setting there's nothing you can really add to a campaign setting aside from updating stats. If you just want fluff, it's already there. Even more importantly, there's wikis floating about collecting this information and putting into a single place that's (ideally) better organized than a book could ever be. For free.

Yes, but I doubt a wiki is more accessible for new players than a organized campaign guide. And again, just as with forums, or DM'sG material, WotC let the fanbase to do the work. Is it "smart"? In some ways, yes, but it still gives the message: WotC doesn't want to support the game.

And advancing the timeline's not always a good option either. Changes have to happen, moving years around doesn't make setting book B different from setting book A. And if you alter the setting to advance the timelines, you will upset somebody. The question is if more people are angered than people interested in your new book.

Yes, but I'd rather have a living setting, even if i don't like all of the changes, than a fossilized one. And again, a living setting means stories, novels, which is a big point to me. I like to read, I like to read about characters I could relate to, through whose eyes i could see the setting i love. Novels were always what got me interested in a setting and kept me that way. Dave Gross for example had a biiig hand in why I hooked on Golarion. Wes Schneider too, with Ustalav as the real spiritual successor of Ravenloft.

There's a reason not to license out: WotC doesn't want to compete with itself. Too many books and you run the risk of overwhelming a new player.

While i could understand that reasoning, I never felt that way. FR, or the WoD, or Golarion were never intimidated me. I loved I have a lot of material to read and a living, rich, detailed setting. I know a lot of people dislike metaplot, but I never was one of them. That doesn't mean i always liked the metaplot, I just liked how it made the settings a living one. I loved there is a wider world around the PCs. And again, stories.

Also, it never occured to me, why is it a bad thing to have a lot of books. You don't have to read all of them, you don't have to have any of them you don't want. I always started with the respective games' corebooks and then read what caught my interest. I wasn't a "daunting, overwhelming task".

Too many books and you begin to splinter profit. And that splintered profit isn't going straight to wotc, either. Depending on the negotiated license, the people actually writing the books get a cut, too.

There's a thing: what makes the most sense from a purely financial standpoint doesn't necessarily make the game great, or certain people, like me interested. The recent business model might be profitable short-term, even long-term, but it started to seriously getting me uninterested in D&D, so WotC is likely going to lose a costumer, because it doesn't publish material I'm interested in.

It's easier to write a book that's usable by most people than to risk splintering. Even if you don't run the adventure, the books wotc release are where the setting details you want are located, have new generic and specific monsters, and maps! The maps are a big sell for me, as it can be tedious to draw up your own.

The flipside of things is that I'd have to read through and pay for a lot of material I'm uninterested in just for some setting information. Still we won't get any material which isn't tied into the actual campaign they're running, so i might wait and wait and wait for something I'm interested in. Even if they organized it like Paizo in their APs, so I got the setting material and beastiary separated, organized and clearly stated in the product's description would be much better. That could work, I'd pay for thatmore happily! Moreso if they're willing to use the whole setting not just a small portion of it, like, again, Paizo with their setting.

And I think that's how wotc wants things. The core is more important than the splat. If the core sells well, that means D&D has a wider audience, and that wider audience would look at D&D related items that aren't books. This is the net you want to spread, not settings. People aren't likely to buy from a lot of different settings, but they may be more willing to spend on D&D related merchandise.

Again, that might be what generates the most money, but it doesn't make the game itself better. The RPG and the setting won't get better, or more interesting because I could buy action figures, or lunch boxes.

The best thing about it is that while it got me uninterested in D&D, It is a good method to bring more people to the hobby. I never doubted that 5e is a great game for beginners, not just because of the simplicity of the rules, but because of the business model. More people means more potential people who might realize after while that they want more, or something different, so more potential costumers for other, more supported RPGs. I never said it is a bad model. It's just a model that started to alienating me, because that wasn't what I want from an RPG. I might like to eat in McD from time-to-time, but I don't want to eat their same-tasting food every day, thanks. I prefer diversity, so I'd go to the small, owner's runned special restaurants, which migth not generate that much traffic but makes good and interesting food and I know the owner by the name. Call me a hipster if you like.

I don't actually know how important setting is to most people compared to system. If people don't like the default setting for a system, it's all too easy to just remove it and make your own world. Likewise, if you don't have much in the way of brand loyalty, then it's just as easy to take a setting you like and then port it into a system you prefer.

I don't have any hard data, but I suspect that's why when people talk about 5e vs. pathfinder, setting doesn't come up.

You might be right. I also noticed that the majority of people here, and a lot of YTers are more inclined to homebrew and that's fine.

However, about the converting side: It was the same for me with CWoD/NWoD. At the time, I thought NWoD has the better system (now I have a more nuanced opinion, especially with 2e), but, although NWoD had a lot of great ideas and supplements, I still liked CWoD's lore and story and setting more. For a while, I played with the thought to convert it, they even made guides for that, but I decided it doesn't worth the amount of work it'd take. I decided the setting is more important for me than the system. *

Likewise, I could run Golarion with 5e, If i want to, but converting everything in the modules I might use, the NPCs, the classes I or the players want to use, readjusting the loot and everything? 5e is easy to convert to, but no thanks, i don't have that much time and energy. And also, just as with CWoD, I realized there are parts of the system which i actually like a bit better than the new shiny. Not everything, there are pluses and minuses on both sides in nearly equal ammount. It's just I don't dislike it enough to invest that much work to converting.

And even if I convert, then I buy the corebooks for 5e, maybe the upcoming system supplement, if there is material in there I want. Then I buy a LOT of PF books for setting, and novels.

So, for me, again, the supported setting is really a dealbreaker. It doesn't mean I'd refuse to play 5e, or even GMing one-shots. I'd play it happily, because i think it's still a good game after all. It's just that I see how WotC doesn't seem to want putting out material I'm interested in, so instead i'm focusing on games which publishers are.

*it might seem contradictory that I mostly stayed with CWoD through the "dead years" until V20. Indeed those were hard times, but I really-really love that setting and game.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

"Chapter 2: Character Races presents character races that are some of the more distinctive race options in the D&D multiverse."

I didn't catch that! Thanks for bringing it up. It is potentially promising.

3. The disclaimer. I actually dislike what they did with Ravenloft. CoS may be a great adventure, but the whole 4e paradigm of the individual Domains of Dread and the representation of Barovia in CoS and Strahd himself are just killed one of my favorite settings. Again, they just wanted to milk the cash-cow, redoing the original module, then throwing out the window everything that came later and made it to a fan-favorite setting. I can't really understand what made them do it this way, the Hickmans, or Perkins just doesn't like the RL setting. I just really-really bugged by the results. I thought they had enough with burning bridges in 4e.

I don't have the book. Does it actually outright contradict the existence of the Ravenloft demi-plane setting, or simply remain silent on anything outside of Barovia? For instance, I assume that in the adventure the Mists prevent you traveling outside Barovia, but as I understand it, lore states that Dreadlords can seal the borders to their domains, having exactly that effect. So if that is how they present it, it could be interpreted either as Barovia is a stand alone location, or it could be interpreted in harmony with 1e-3e lore.

I could see them going either way with this. The DMG tended to take an inclusive and flexible approach to interpreting the multiverse, and one of the WotC staff said in response to a question about Ravenloft's location that Ravenloft is where it has always been. (Note the the DMG doesn't say that the domains actually exist in the Shadowfell, just that they can be reached through the Shadowfell.*) Still, they have occasionally taken a solid stance on something they could have left more open, for mysterious reasons, so it's possible they officially decided the demi-plane doesn't exist and it's just individual domains.

*It does, however, refer to them as "demiplanes" in plural. However, the chapter also tells us that all the various planar connections are just someone's best guess, and people disagree. So maybe a lot of multiverse sages see the domains as separate demiplanes, while the most knowledgeable believe it is one plane in the Ethereal Plane (or vice versa). The chapter does however, seem to define the Dark Powers as actual beings (boo! hiss! let me define the plot device how I want!)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I doubt we'll see that here, but I imagine that Spelljamming will be mentioned, in the very least obliquely, in the neogi section. As I've said before, I'm thinking that Volo will think neogi are somehow native to Toril, and we'll have a snarky Elminster footnote explaining their real origin.

Sure. I'd be fine with a UA article, honestly.

 

[flametitan]

I don't have the book. Does it actually outright contradict the existence of the Ravenloft demi-plane setting, or simply remain silent on anything outside of Barovia? For instance, I assume that in the adventure the Mists prevent you traveling outside Barovia, but as I understand it, lore states that Dreadlords can seal the borders to their domains, having exactly that effect. So if that is how they present it, it could be interpreted either as Barovia is a stand alone location, or it could be interpreted in harmony with 1e-3e lore.

I could see them going either way with this. The DMG tended to take an inclusive and flexible approach to interpreting the multiverse, and one of the WotC staff said in response to a question about Ravenloft's location that Ravenloft is where it has always been. (Note the the DMG doesn't say that the domains actually exist in the Shadowfell, just that they can be reached through the Shadowfell.*) Still, they have occasionally taken a solid stance on something they could have left more open, for mysterious reasons, so it's possible they officially decided the demi-plane doesn't exist and it's just individual domains.

*It does, however, refer to them as "demiplanes" in plural. However, the chapter also tells us that all the various planar connections are just someone's best guess, and people disagree. So maybe a lot of multiverse sages see the domains as separate demiplanes, while the most knowledgeable believe it is one plane in the Ethereal Plane (or vice versa). The chapter does however, seem to define the Dark Powers as actual beings (boo! hiss! let me define the plot device how I want!)

It does more to contradict the timeline (and perform sacrilege by explaining what the dark powers are) than the world. Van Richten still hails from another domain in the demiplane of dread, though it doesn't explain how he got to Barovia. Other than that, the adventure hardly touches on if the other realms exist, let alone how they connect to Barovia.

 

[Beleriphon]

*It does, however, refer to them as "demiplanes" in plural. However, the chapter also tells us that all the various planar connections are just someone's best guess, and people disagree. So maybe a lot of multiverse sages see the domains as separate demiplanes, while the most knowledgeable believe it is one plane in the Ethereal Plane (or vice versa). The chapter does however, seem to define the Dark Powers as actual beings (boo! hiss! let me define the plot device how I want!)

The Dark Powers are obviously of the same type as Ao's boss, and the people Deadpool talks to in yellow speech bubbles.

 

[gyor]

Its been confirmed by a Ed that the novel line is ending, or really with Hero and The Devil You Know out it just ended, please don't ask for a link, I forgot the address, but trust, its over.

As for the FRCG, they DID advance the timeline via the Sundering, that why we want a FRCG, so much has changed.

And the fact that FR was a living setting is what makes it different from Golaron and countless other settings, its what made it special, it felt alive, now its like they all, but killed it.

But back on topic, your welcome Sword of Spirit.

I hope they show up the table of contents.

 

[gantzerteo]

About Spelljammer: Crystal Spheres and Phlogiston can be a nice idea to introduce mobs and races from other settings but I think that races like Warforged and Kender are a bit far to be introduced as playable races in Faerun. For example there are no races or monsters typical of other settings in any 5e product published after the Monster Manual (with the exception of CoS I guess) nor in the campaigns nor in the source book(s). Even the catfolk now turn to be faerunian Tabaxi.

About CoS: they contradicted the timeline of Faerun too in OotA (Bruenor is dead since decades when the campaign presumably happen) and made a mess of the locations and maps in general. But this is more part of the brandnew/renovation plan new-players-friendly than a choice.

About the lack of publications: I don't know you guys but I'm pretty busy now and in the past and I couldn't stand publication rythm of the past. Too many splatbooks, too many unuseful tools, too many bs materials. They said they will publish 2 adventure + 1 handbook per year and they have a rules expansion product in mind. For me is enough but probably I'm not an hardcorer.