Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hexmage-EN" data-source="post: 8499520" data-attributes="member: 79428">I'm not against giving D&D species more diversity, but I'm also a bit curious about how useful that would be for the majority of DMs. I'm unaware of any metrics concerning how likely it is for a DM to primarily use the Monster Manual as a means for finding interesting things for their PCs to fight and to read lore facilitated to creating reasons for PCs to need to fight them versus wanting to use them as more fleshed-out NPCs that aren't automatically antagonists. I have no idea how many DMs would be pleased to have more lore and possibilities presented for a smaller number of creatures versus having a larger selection of statblocks to use against their players. A DM who wants to feature minotaurs prominently and have multiple distinct minotaur cultures might appreciate spending for time on minotaur lore versus just a statblock, but a DM who mainly just wants to run combat encounters will be annoyed that the darkmantle or water weird or whatever was cut out of the Monster Manual for extraneous minotaur lore they'll never use. In the end, every creature in the Monster Manual is primarily a statblock of game mechanics useful for combat with flavor text to give a reason why this collection of stats represents something different from other statblocks in the book.I do know at least that removing alignment was popular enough a sentiment that WotC tried it out for a short time but that ultimately they decided to reinstate it with the qualifier "typically", citing backlash to its removal as a reason for bringing it back. I'm curious to see what other changes WotC attempts in the coming years and how many end up sticking in the long term.</blockquote>

Verification