5.5E The future of edition changes and revisions

But, this whole goblin thing really does sort of line up with what I said before.

Does anyone actually care about the origins of monsters? I mean, sure, you might like to read about it or whatnot, but, does anyone actually care? Are goblins suddenly not usable in Lost Mines of Phandelver because now they have a Fae origin? Does anyone have to rewrite the module in any way, shape or form? Would I suddenly need to rewrite Caves of Chaos because goblins are, many, many generations ago, descended from Fae?

This is my point about tempest in a teacup. Frankly, who cares? It's not going to make the slightest difference in anyone's game. You can run exactly the same modules, in exactly the same way before and after. It's just a nifty bit of flavor text that might lead to more stuff down the line. I imagine that if they release new modules featuring goblins, they might play up the Fae aspect. But, again, there's a million different ways to do that.

It's really funny to me. Paizo completely rewrites goblins and gets nothing but a huge pat on the back for it. WotC does far, far less to change goblins and they are abandoning fans. :erm:
If no one cares, you really have to wonder why they decided to do it then.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


The number of people I've seen praise A5E that has orcs driven by passion, celestial tieflings, halflings with claws and a burrowing speed, and so many more things (it's a really creative take on a lot of fantasy races, highly recommend even if you don't want all that crunch) and simultaneously be mad at floating ASIs and adjustments to monster lore is higher than expected, I'm similarly perplexed. Is it just because it's made by the site and gets a pass on Old Guard sensibilities because it's an in-crowd product?

Is it because they're just ignoring the lore for the crunch they want, which is the exact thing they could be doing with WotC product but aren't because... reasons?
Speaking for myself, there are two reasons:

1. A5e doesn't actually have floating ASIs, they're determined by your background, and the in-born traits of your heritage are provided for in that part of the origin far better than WorC ever did.

2. A5e isn't a setting, with its own lore (it has settings, but it isn't one in and of itself). The D&D multiverse is a setting unto itself, and the lore WotC is changing is replacing existing lore. They are changing the story,, which is what i cared about. Every weird option in A5e for a given heritage is just that, an option, and called out as such.
 

JEB

Legend
Lots of legacy media has been facing this problem. Even Paizo has been tackling this. Everyone is finding where the path will go next. Will mistakes be made? Absolutely.
As an example: Wizards eliminating alignment entirely early in 2021 (and obviously in a hurry, if you look at Candlekeep), but rethinking that decision and restoring it - with more obvious nuances - by the end of the year. It's a work in progress.
 


Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Not sure how anyone sees a throughline between First Edition and Second Edition lore. Second Edition made Lolth into a goddess rather than a Demon Lord, completely changed the nature of fiends, dramatically changed how demon lords and gods were handled and moved the Forgotten Realms to the forefront over Greyhawk.
 

JEB

Legend
Not sure how anyone sees a throughline between First Edition and Second Edition lore. Second Edition made Lolth into a goddess rather than a Demon Lord, completely changed the nature of fiends, dramatically changed how demon lords and gods were handled and moved the Forgotten Realms to the forefront over Greyhawk.
Compare the descriptive text in the 1E monster books and the original Monstrous Compendiums, for starters; way more similarities than differences, and outright reprinting at times. Nearly all differences between 1E and 2E lore are explained within 2E (for example, the status of Orcus is explained within Dead Gods), or simply represent expansion (or rules differences) rather than contradiction (such as the addition of the crystal spheres in Spelljammer, or the renaming of the Outer Planes and their creatures). They also had adventures that specifically transitioned the Realms and Greyhawk to the 2E ruleset, and continued the histories of both settings plus Dragonlance unbroken into 2E. There's no indication they were intended to be treated as separate lines of lore, and many, many indications that they were the same.

Now, AD&D and Basic D&D, those had more lore differences (particularly at the cosmology level).
 

Hussar

Legend
Yes, clearly. (Especially when origin lore gets reflected in game mechanics.)
See, you say "clearly" here. But, again, 5e rewrote virtually every single origin of every single monster in the Monster Manual. So much got rewritten. And no one cares.

What mechanics are we talking about here? After all, 2e to 3e suddenly changed the fact that you no longer had a "goblin" as a monster. A goblin is a Warrior NPC class. A goblin is identical to a human warrior, mechanically. Which is identical to an orc or a hobgoblin. Mechanically, they were all exactly the same. About the only difference was a couple of HP.

Now, with Fae origin, goblins are harder to charm? So, this is considered a serious change? Why? It's far, far less of a change mechanically than what we had going from 2e to 3e. Heck, what was a 2e goblin's Strength score? Oh, right, they didn't have one.

So, no, I would say that it isn't clear at all. This is a change that in no way impacts anything. You can run exactly the same adventures and, frankly, it will never, EVER come up in your game unless you want it to.
 

Hussar

Legend
Compare the descriptive text in the 1E monster books and the original Monstrous Compendiums, for starters; way more similarities than differences, and outright reprinting at times. Nearly all differences between 1E and 2E lore are explained within 2E (for example, the status of Orcus is explained within Dead Gods), or simply represent expansion (or rules differences) rather than contradiction (such as the addition of the crystal spheres in Spelljammer, or the renaming of the Outer Planes and their creatures). They also had adventures that specifically transitioned the Realms and Greyhawk to the 2E ruleset, and continued the histories of both settings plus Dragonlance unbroken into 2E. There's no indication they were intended to be treated as separate lines of lore, and many, many indications that they were the same.

Now, AD&D and Basic D&D, those had more lore differences (particularly at the cosmology level).
But... you've just gotten told that this wasn't true by someone who has spent a considerable amount of time demonstrating that this isn't true.

:erm:
 

JEB

Legend
See, you say "clearly" here. But, again, 5e rewrote virtually every single origin of every single monster in the Monster Manual. So much got rewritten. And no one cares.
You asked if anyone cares. Yes, some people care. Read upthread, or the many other threads where the changes get debated. You can nitpick their reasons for caring, but the differences do matter to some people.

Also, people have complained about changes to the monster lore in the 5E Monster Manual as well (gnolls, most notably).
 


Hussar

Legend
You asked if anyone cares. Yes, some people care. Read upthread, or the many other threads where the changes get debated. You can nitpick their reasons for caring, but the differences do matter to some people.

Also, people have complained about changes to the monster lore in the 5E Monster Manual as well (gnolls, most notably).
People quibbled. There certainly wasn't much ink spilled over the fact that nearly every single monster got redone for the edition.

I guess I should have been more clear. Sure, some people care. Again, "many threads"? What many threads. You mean that once in a while thread you see talking about a couple of the changes like orcs or drow? Because I don't recall a whole lot of threads talking about the other 99% of the monsters that got rewritten.

What I do see is a couple of people who are trying to pretend that this is a major issue when the overwhelming majority simply don't care. It makes zero difference to how the game is played. Does not impact any of the previous 5e adventures. Sure, it updates a couple of books. Again, who cares? It's not going to make the slightest difference in anyone's game.

Are you actually going to try to tell me that your players would hate D&D because it now says, "Goblin Medium Humanoid (fae)" (or whatever the text is)? Are you trying to tell me that your players could actually tell you, right now, without looking it up, what monster type a goblin is and how that matters in the game?

Is the number of people who care zero? No, obviously not. Is it close enough to zero that it can see zero on a clear day? Yuppers.
 

JEB

Legend
People quibbled. There certainly wasn't much ink spilled over the fact that nearly every single monster got redone for the edition.
Is the number of people who care zero? No, obviously not. Is it close enough to zero that it can see zero on a clear day? Yuppers.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, your stance is:
1. You have to complain about every single change to lore before any of your lore complaints are legitimate. If you're fine with any changes to lore, you're a hypocrite and no longer have any right to complain.
2. There's a certain number of obviously unhappy people required before any complaints about lore changes are legitimate. If the numbers are below that perceived minimum, you're insignificant and no longer have any right to complain.

Personally, I'm pretty happy with my standard: "Let folks complain about changes to the game they don't like, even if they don't personally matter much to me."
 

Echohawk

Shirokinukatsukami fan
What I do see is a couple of people who are trying to pretend that this is a major issue when the overwhelming majority simply don't care.
If anyone has claimed either that the majority of D&D players do, in fact, care deeply about the changes, or that the majority of D&D players should care deeply about the changes, I missed that. I see a few people who are saying that this is a major issue for them. And that's okay. It's fine for people to be passionate about or protective of D&D lore, especially on forums dedicated to the discussion of all things D&D.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
So if I'm understanding you correctly, your stance is:
1. You have to complain about every single change to lore before any of your lore complaints are legitimate. If you're fine with any changes to lore, you're a hypocrite and no longer have any right to complain.
2. There's a certain number of obviously unhappy people required before any complaints about lore changes are legitimate. If the numbers are below that perceived minimum, you're insignificant and no longer have any right to complain.

Personally, I'm pretty happy with my standard: "Let folks complain about changes to the game they don't like, even if they don't personally matter much to me."
Well, for WotC, the threshold for the Core Rules and lore is 90% approval. So, as long as fewer than 5 million people disapprove, they are fine for the purposes of the new revision...
 

JEB

Legend
Well, for WotC, the threshold for the Core Rules and lore is 90% approval. So, as long as fewer than 5 million people disapprove, they are fine for the purposes of the new revision...
How Wizards makes its decisions isn't particularly relevant to whether or not people are justified in complaining about changes they don't like.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
How Wizards makes its decisions isn't particularly relevant to whether or not people are justified in complaining about changes they don't like.
But it bears precisely on how much significance can be read into to a batch of kvetching. After the events 2020, there was a surge of demand by the community for certain changes to problematic elements of the game from WotC, that probably crossed the 4-5 million threshold, hence why they worked to introduce them.
 
Last edited:

JEB

Legend
But it bears precisely onbiw much significance can be given to a batch of kbetching. After the events 2020, there was a surge of demand by the community for certain changes to problematic elements of the game from WotC, that probably crossed the 4-5 million threshold, hence why they worked to introduce them.
So you're saying that people in the D&D community complained about things they didn't like in the game, and once it reached a certain threshold, Wizards listened? Good argument for letting people speak their mind without shame, I think; it makes the game more representative of what most of its community wants, to include relatively small segments of that community.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
So you're saying that people in the D&D community complained about things they didn't like in the game, and once it reached a certain threshold, Wizards listened? Good argument for letting people speak their mind without shame, I think; it makes the game more representative of what most of its community wants, to include relatively small segments of that community.
Also a good case for providing pushback in the back and forth of discussion.
 

JEB

Legend
Also a good case for providing pushback in the back and forth of discussion.
If the pushback is respectful, and intended to further discussion and understanding, rather than an attempt to shut down a line of discussion altogether? Sure.
 
Last edited:

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top