D&D (2024) The future of edition changes and revisions

[Micah Sweet]

I was curious about goblins specifically, so I spent half an hour or so skimming through their write ups. It turns out that they are actually one of the more consistently presented races, and yet...

• They have drifted from their original lawful evil alignment (1e/2e) to neutral evil (3e), to just evil (4e), through to 5e's prevarication.
• In OD&D they hated dwarves so much that they would attack on sight. This antipathy gradually faded through editions.
• The 1st Edition Monster Manual implies that they may be related to kobolds. This is a relationship that continues to be mentioned throughout 1st and 2nd Edition, until kobolds became something different in 3e.
• BX and BECMI give goblins eyes that glow red in the dark. They don't seem to have these glowing eyes in any other version.
• Until 3rd Edition, goblin aversion to sunlight is constantly emphasised. Yet from 3rd Edition onward, this seems to have been entirely dropped.
• 4th Edition implies that goblins may have been the magical creations of the hobgoblins when the hobgoblins ran an ancient empire.

The revelation in Monsters of the Multiverse that goblins were originally fey makes it clear that goblins themselves are unaware of this distant history. In that sense, this is "additive" lore, in that it doesn't detract from what was previously understood, it just adds another layer. Mechanically, goblins now gain Fey Ancestry giving them resistance to charm. This is a change, sure, but not something that is likely to have a massive impact on how PCs experience goblins in practice.

Bottom line: I'm not convinced that "but this changes everything we know about goblins" is a reason for disliking the recent changes that stands up to close scrutiny. Would the new goblins be more acceptable if they were glowing red-eyed, sunlight averse, compulsive dwarf killers, who were magically created by hobgoblins before they became fey?

My reason is that I don't like the fey asthetic, feel it is being used too liberally recently, and see no benefit to adding it to goblins.

 

[Echohawk]

My reason is that I don't like the fey asthetic, feel it is being used too liberally recently, and see no benefit to adding it to goblins.

That reason makes far more sense to me than not liking it because it changes decades of goblin lore.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That reason makes far more sense to me than not liking it because it changes decades of goblin lore.

Well, in general I also don't care for retcons that don't add anything valuable to me to the lore of the world, but the other reasons are more important.

 

[Remathilis]

My reason is that I don't like the fey asthetic, feel it is being used too liberally recently, and see no benefit to adding it to goblins.

And that's a fair assessment. You don't have to like every change. A lot of people hate draconic kobolds, elemental giants, and demonic gnolls.

That said, I think a trend is starting to emerge: the various classic evil humanoids are going to get more diverse origin stories than "born of an evil deity and forced to serve." Kobolds are connected to dragons. Gnolls to fiends. Derro to aberrations. Now goblinoids to the fey. It appears only orcs so far aren't being connected to a larger creature group, and that's probably to prep them for their upgrade to PC race status. (A guess on my part).

On the one hand, I think it adds a lot more flavor to humanoids to give them connections like that. Kobolds benefited greatly from the blood of dragons theming since 3e, and I find 5e gnolls far more interesting than the older hyena men. Goblins becoming fey+like give them more room to be tricksy and whimsical but also sadistic and cruel. It might also add some more interesting ideas into D&D goblins who have been overshadowed by the chaotic energy of Pathfinder goblins since they became a thing.

But different strokes and all that.

 

[TwoSix]

On the one hand, I think it adds a lot more flavor to humanoids to give them connections like that. Kobolds benefited greatly from the blood of dragons theming since 3e, and I find 5e gnolls far more interesting than the older hyena men. Goblins becoming fey+like give them more room to be tricksy and whimsical but also sadistic and cruel. It might also add some more interesting ideas into D&D goblins who have been overshadowed by the chaotic energy of Pathfinder goblins since they became a thing.

Yea, I definitely prefer the more overt Faerie origin for goblinkind, it fits better with how I use them. Goblins are disgusting tricksters and pranksters, with focuses of toilet humor and weird technology. Hobgoblins are their antithesis, focused soldiers, and more of an Unseelie mirror to high elves. (In that they are material plane dwelling descendants of the "rank and file" denizens of Faerie.) Bugbears then become almost literal boogeymen, who leap from shadows to capture children and the weak for their next meal.

 

[JEB]

I was curious about goblins specifically, so I spent half an hour or so skimming through their write ups. It turns out that they are actually one of the more consistently presented races, and yet...

• They have drifted from their original lawful evil alignment (1e/2e) to neutral evil (3e), to just evil (4e), through to 5e's prevarication.
• In OD&D they hated dwarves so much that they would attack on sight. This antipathy gradually faded through editions.
• The 1st Edition Monster Manual implies that they may be related to kobolds. This is a relationship that continues to be mentioned throughout 1st and 2nd Edition, until kobolds became something different in 3e.
• BX and BECMI give goblins eyes that glow red in the dark. They don't seem to have these glowing eyes in any other version.
• Until 3rd Edition, goblin aversion to sunlight is constantly emphasised. Yet from 3rd Edition onward, this seems to have been entirely dropped.
• 4th Edition implies that goblins may have been the magical creations of the hobgoblins when the hobgoblins ran an ancient empire.

The revelation in Monsters of the Multiverse that goblins were originally fey makes it clear that goblins themselves are unaware of this distant history. In that sense, this is "additive" lore, in that it doesn't detract from what was previously understood, it just adds another layer. Mechanically, goblins now gain Fey Ancestry giving them resistance to charm. This is a change, sure, but not something that is likely to have a massive impact on how PCs experience goblins in practice.

Bottom line: I'm not convinced that "but this changes everything we know about goblins" is a reason for disliking the recent changes that stands up to close scrutiny. Would the new goblins be more acceptable if they were glowing red-eyed, sunlight averse, compulsive dwarf killers, who were magically created by hobgoblins before they became fey?

Interesting rundown, appreciate the research from someone with your expertise. But, I do have some comments:

• They changed all three core goblinoid races, not just the goblin (the bugbear getting the most notable mechanical change). So the analysis should consider those changes as well. Taken as a whole, it's a little more significant.
• By your own admission, goblins actually have been pretty consistent across editions. (You didn't mention it, but early 5E was also pretty consistent with earlier portrayals.) Those previous-edition changes you found are fairly mild, and mainly a matter of lore than mechanics. None quite compare to making goblins fey (both in lore and mechanics) when they were previously just Material Plane humanoids. MOTM's changes are far from the most drastic edition change ever (the champion there is probably 4E's lamia), but it's certainly a more noticeable change than anything previous for goblinoids.
• You also neglected to recognize that this is the first time we've had such a fundamental change to a core monster in the middle of the same edition, to the point of intentionally contradicting published material that's less than six years old (VGTM). I think folks can be forgiven for being taken aback by that. (TBH, though, between the lore and mechanical changes overall in this book, it very much feels like a different baseline setting to earlier 5E. Even if technically compatible. This extends to changes such as those you raised with Spelljammer above, as well as Ravenloft.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Interesting rundown, appreciate the research from someone with your expertise. But, I do have some comments:

• They changed all three core goblinoid races, not just the goblin (the bugbear getting the most notable mechanical change). So the analysis should consider those changes as well. Taken as a whole, it's a little more significant.
• By your own admission, goblins actually have been pretty consistent across editions. (You didn't mention it, but early 5E was also pretty consistent with earlier portrayals.) Those previous-edition changes you found are fairly mild, and mainly a matter of lore than mechanics. None quite compare to making goblins fey (both in lore and mechanics) when they were previously just Material Plane humanoids. MOTM's changes are far from the most drastic edition change ever (the champion there is probably 4E's lamia), but it's certainly a more noticeable change than anything previous for goblinoids.
• You also neglected to recognize that this is the first time we've had such a fundamental change to a core monster in the middle of the same edition, to the point of intentionally contradicting published material that's less than six years old (VGTM). I think folks can be forgiven for being taken aback by that. (TBH, though, between the lore and mechanical changes overall in this book, it very much feels like a different baseline setting to earlier 5E. Even if technically compatible. This extends to changes such as those you raised with Spelljammer above, as well as Ravenloft.)

Yeah, contradicting material within the edition is a bit of a bigger deal. It makes it harder to compartmentalize (which is my primary way of dealing with changes in the game I don't care for, and which has been increasingly more difficult in the last few years). Of course, being surrounded online by people who apparently love everything WotC's doing doesn't make it any easier.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Interesting rundown, appreciate the research from someone with your expertise. But, I do have some comments:

• They changed all three core goblinoid races, not just the goblin (the bugbear getting the most notable mechanical change). So the analysis should consider those changes as well. Taken as a whole, it's a little more significant.
• By your own admission, goblins actually have been pretty consistent across editions. (You didn't mention it, but early 5E was also pretty consistent with earlier portrayals.) Those previous-edition changes you found are fairly mild, and mainly a matter of lore than mechanics. None quite compare to making goblins fey (both in lore and mechanics) when they were previously just Material Plane humanoids. MOTM's changes are far from the most drastic edition change ever (the champion there is probably 4E's lamia), but it's certainly a more noticeable change than anything previous for goblinoids.
• You also neglected to recognize that this is the first time we've had such a fundamental change to a core monster in the middle of the same edition, to the point of intentionally contradicting published material that's less than six years old (VGTM). I think folks can be forgiven for being taken aback by that. (TBH, though, between the lore and mechanical changes overall in this book, it very much feels like a different baseline setting to earlier 5E. Even if technically compatible. This extends to changes such as those you raised with Spelljammer above, as well as Ravenloft.)

Are they making goblins fey or are they changing their origin to say they were once fey but now are not (ala elves) with an associated fey ancestory ability?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Are they making goblins fey or are they changing their origin to say they were once fey but now are not (ala elves) with an associated fey ancestory ability?

The latter.

Which is why the complaints about "fey aesthetics" and so on are rather perplexing. It seems to be more of an imagined future issue than anything that's actually happening.

 

[Parmandur]

Are they making goblins fey or are they changing their origin to say they were once fey but now are not (ala elves) with an associated fey ancestory ability?

The latter.

Which is why the complaints about "fey aesthetics" and so on are rather perplexing. It seems to be more of an imagined future issue than anything that's actually happening.

Actually...both. Goblinoids on the Material Plane ate Humanoids with Fey Ancestry now, but some of the Goblinoid monster stat blocks are now Fey (Nilbog, etc), with text explaining that some Goblinoids are still in the Feywild.