D&D 5E Renamed: Wandering Monsters 2 weeks later

[steeldragons]

It's been two weeks now [hasn't it?] and no "Wandering Monsters" articles.

Have I missed something or is it just that no one has linked to it [I can't, I'm not on a member of the WotC site]...or are they just scared/don't want to post the article/see what folks have to say about it on this site anymore? lol.

Though, admittedly, the last few we did get it seemed pretty obvious Mr. Wyatt was scraping the barrel for material on which to base an article. So maybe "Wandering Monsters" is just...done?

 

[Klaus]

It's been two weeks now [hasn't it?] and no "Wandering Monsters" articles.

Have I missed something or is it just that no one has linked to it [I can't, I'm not on a member of the WotC site]...or are they just scared/don't want to post the article/see what folks have to say about it on this site anymore? lol.

Though, admittedly, the last few we did get it seemed pretty obvious Mr. Wyatt was scraping the barrel for material on which to base an article. So maybe "Wandering Monsters" is just...done?

There have been WM articles, but no one has linked them. Here:

11/27: Born of Dragons
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131127

11/20: Under The Sea
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131120

Incidently, you don't need to be a member of the WotC site, WM isn't behind a paywall.

 

[steeldragons]

There have been WM articles, but no one has linked them. Here:

11/27: Born of Dragons
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131127

11/20: Under The Sea
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131120

Incidently, you don't need to be a member of the WotC site, WM isn't behind a paywall.

Oh really?! I was sure it was...dunno why, but doesn't matter. Thanks Klaus!

Anyone feel like discussing either of them? Feel free to use this thread for comments on them...now that we have links.

 

[Klaus]

Oh really?! I was sure it was...dunno why, but doesn't matter. Thanks Klaus!

Anyone feel like discussing either of them? Feel free to use this thread for comments on them...now that we have links.

I'll just quote myself from the Born of Dragons article:

My preference is to leave deities out of the racial origins as much as possible.

For dragonborn, I'd credit their rise to the effect dragons (as legendary creatures) have on their environment. Just like a black dragon's presence slowly infects the landscape around it, creating acidic bogs, etc, so too does its presence "manifests" in the creatures that live near its lair. If the lair is close enough to humanoid settlements, children with draconic characteristics start being born (some are sorcerers, some have merely cosmetic changes...). These eventually gave rise to full dragonborn.

Of course, these births are a sure sign that a dragon lairs nearby, so benevolent dragons often choose to lair far from civilized lands, while an evil dragon's presence may end up displacing an entire village who tries to avoid these draconic births. Perhaps the true dragonborn arise from the ranks of creatures that have a history of revering and serving dragons, such as lizardfolk and kobolds (and their name could be "krolli").

As for Under The Sea, I'm ok with merfolk being pretty much "aquatic humans", as the baseline underwater race, and with the merrow receiving more attention. I'm not so sure about the intelligent kraken, perhaps because I'm used to krakren being of animal-like intelligence in other media (Pirates of the Caribbean, Clash of the Titans, the Watcher in LotR). But it could work, I guess.

 

[steeldragons]

RE: Underwater.

Coupla things that jump out...The Merfolk are fine, I guess. Can't forge stuff, is fine. More primitive is ok. But, imo, it seems they should be allowing for more organized/civilized/magical/Atlantean-esque/deep-water merfolk. Instead, we're told their primitive and tribal...but some of them inhabit abandoned sea elf cities? The sea elves get cities why?

The merrow I 1) completely endorse and agree with them getting their own entry and am much more likely to use them when presented as such than under "Ogre: oh yeah and there's underwater ones called merrow." So that's all good stuff. What makes me absolutely NUTS is: [paraphrasing] "Here's a very specific origin story of how merrow came to be...But no one knows this cuz it was so long ago." Uhhhh, then WHY do I have a detailed origin story telling me this is what happened?! Where's the "One tale tells..." or "It has been said..." or "The old salty dogs along the wharfside claim..." ??? So, yeah, didn't dig that whole bit. When you're in a setting book, then you get to say "this is how they came to be"...when it's for D&D and not, specifically, Eberron, FR, Greyhawk, et al. then there ought be no "this is..." only "this might be how..."

They seemd to be getting that for a few articles, but this one definitely lost it.

The kraken...I'm also kinda "meh." I'm guessing it's the Clash of the Titans' fault (you know, the good/real/original one). D&D kraken's as just colossal squid do absolutely NOTHING for me. Ten tentacles, beak bite, ink squirt...really?! That's the most terrifying horrific "war machines of the gods"?! Yep. They're big...Yep. They're strong...but they're just giant squids. The raising storms/creating hurricanes is all good, I suppose, though hardly touched upon. Is this spellcasting? Innate ability? Psionic telekinetic weather control? Otherwise...yeh, giant squid. Big woo.

 

[steeldragons]

My preference is to leave deities out of the racial origins as much as possible.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?349379-Wandering-Monsters#ixzz2mPhzrAo0​

I agree, but they do seem to fall back on that...with seeming intentional regularity. Even just from the underwater article...Where do kraken's come from? The gods, of course! [That, at least, has some rw mythology to fall back on.]
​

Why, all of the sudden, did dragon-people have to be their own thing? Was the dragon/humanoid offspring of 3e somehow go against D&D half-races? Did making them sprung up from or chosen/transformed by the blood of dragon gods somehow make them...I dunno..."more"? Seem more "real"? More powerful? More acceptable as a PC race? More "kewlz"? I just don't get it.

I resigned myself long ago that Dragonborn would be a part of 5e, simply cuz, well...4reigners (and the guys who created that game and wave the branding iron with the D&D logo at the end) won't have it any other way. And so, like tieflings and drow pcs, they simply will be there, in the books, to try to make people happy.

They will have no place in my games or world setting. As such, I really don't care one way or the other what/who they are/where they come from. Dragonborn, dragonshnorn.

 

[delericho]

Yep, I also dislike the stated origin for the Dragonborn, although not for quite the same reason as Klaus.

A dragon requires the blessing of Bahamut or Tiamat to give birth to true dragons...

My problem isn't that the deities appear in the origin, which I don't have a problem with in general, but rather the details of that involvement.

It has long been a part of the D&D lore that the true dragons, even the metallic dragons, are extremely proud, to the point of arrogance. Indeed, it is noted (in the 3e Draconomicon, IIRC, but I'm sure that's not the only place) that dragons pay lip service at best to their deities.

That doesn't ring true with "requires the blessing..."

My preference, I think, would be to just go with a variant of the origin of the Draconians - that at various times true dragons have felt the need (or, indeed, desire) for smaller, weaker, but more numerous spawn to venture amongst the lesser races and enact their will. And so, they will either lay a specialised egg or corrupt an existing egg (pick one), and so hatch a clutch of about a dozen dragonborn instead of a single true dragon.

 

[Kinak]

My problem isn't that the deities appear in the origin, which I don't have a problem with in general, but rather the details of that involvement.

Agreed.

My preference, I think, would be to just go with a variant of the origin of the Draconians - that at various times true dragons have felt the need (or, indeed, desire) for smaller, weaker, but more numerous spawn to venture amongst the lesser races and enact their will. And so, they will either lay a specialised egg or corrupt an existing egg (pick one), and so hatch a clutch of about a dozen dragonborn instead of a single true dragon.

I'd go a bit of a different direction with it. A while back, they were really excited about dragons (consciously and unconsciously) warping the environment around them. But they still need to show that rather than just tell us.

The dragonborn can be the result of that warping, born to other humanoid races due to draconic influence, but can breed true. They're more common in areas where there are a lot of dragons, potentially even becoming the dominant race, but can appear rarely anywhere.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[I'm A Banana]

They've both basically tweaked my pet peeves at various levels. Redefinition! Generifiying! One True D&D! Default Effect! Blah blah bloo blah!

I've started avoiding the articles at this point. Whatever Wyatt's going on about, it doesn't sound much like the D&D I currently intend to play. So I hope he has fun and doesn't mess up what I'd like to do too much.

 

[TerraDave]

I felt the undersea one got some of the old vibe back. Though it did overspecify the origins a little bit.

For the dragonkin. Yeah. I see the problem, and the need to have a big tent and all, but still. It was pretty annoying. Even when he cites the statistics on the popularity of the race. Edging out the half-elf is faint praise, as is beating two races that were not even in PHBI. Especially given how generous they where in the mechanics for the dragonborn.