Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shardstone" data-source="post: 9563132" data-attributes="member: 6807784">It's so fascinating to me how people take change in D&D so personally. I get being attached to ideas, but most D&D changes aren't exclusionary. For example, making Aberrations default to the Far Realm isn't exclusionary; we saw in the Aberrant Mind UA and publishing that people do want non-slime Psionics as well. Furthermore, Crawford's entire motto is that they are light on lore so that the DM can either use old lore or custom lore for the creatures. It's literally like, they write a paragraph or two, and then say but hey, this is just seeds for inspiration, make it your own as you want.What gets me is that so many people ask for more lore in these monster books. But you aren't asking for more lore, you're asking for more lore that you like as it fits your schema. For a long time, I wondered why WotC was going so lore-light on monsters but now I think I finally get it. If they go into detail about how kobolds are dragons and what that means for them lore-wise and in terms of ecology, a lot of people will get irrationally mad about it. These same people adopt the argument "They should give more lore and I'll just ignore it if I want!" But they don't ignore it; they trash it first, let everyone else know their opinions, and then just don't even use the creature at all. Weird.</blockquote>