D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Nivenus]

Again, I think there are both objective and subjective elements at play here.

Objectively, the changes in eladrin/tieflings/archons in 4e are different from the changes to kobolds because they were less gradual, more drastic (especially for archons, less so for tieflings), and were bunched up in some significant changes to the assumed cosmology of D&D for 3 editions. Comparatively, the changes to kobolds occurred over a period of several editions and were mostly a series of small steps that ultimately had very little impact on their overall role or the greater context of the game.

Subjectively, the changes to kobolds are less significant because they're just a minor monster race that most DMs and players forget about after the first three or four levels of play. Whereas tieflings were a PC race for two editions, archons were tied up with some fairly popular elements of D&D cosmology generally and one campaign setting in particular, and eladrin got the best/worst of both worlds, crossing over into questions of cosmology as well as stepping on the toes of a popular PC race (elves).

Both reasons are important when considering the difference. While the situation for kobolds and tieflings or eladrin may appear nigh identical on the surface, if you look a bit deeper it's clear they're actually different in a few critical ways.

 

[Hussar]

Quite frankly, yes.

As much as I loathe "Author's Intent" its kinda hard to avoid what the early designers in the 70's and early 80's had in mind. Gary, as being the sole listed author of AD&D, gets a lot of the credit/blame for the AD&D assumptions passed down through the generations. Even if he didn't directly create every detail, he cannonized them in the definitive D&D tomes (of the time) that laid the groundwork for further editions.

Did your PC ever cast "Melf's Acid Arrow"? Its a pretty common AD&D spell. If so, you have a Melf somewhere in your campaign. Congrats. He could be THE Melf, A Melf, or whatever, but for 4* editions of D&D, Melf is a wizard in your D&D campaign. Your repercussions? Remove or change the name (which won't do much, its listed alphabetically by Melf; PCs will still call the thing Melf's Acid Arrow even if you insist it has no name and the wizard Zanzabar created it). You ban the spell (a harsh answer for an otherwise excellent spell) or you can deal with Melf being forced on your game world.

Repeat with: Quiver of Ehlonna (a Oerth Deity), Boccob's Blessed Book, etc.

Trust me, removing a blood war references in the demon section is child's play compared to removing "Melf" from the PHB.

* Oddly, No Melf in 4e. He came back for 5th though.

By the same token, I played 3e mostly with the SRD and so, no, there was no Melf or Boccob or Ehlonna. I never even really noticed that the names had been removed, since no one ever cared. A couple of proper nouns that have no further references don't really have much of an effect on world building.

Look, as far as hating Planescape, that's gotten blown way out of proportion. It's not that I hate Planescape. Well, sure, I'm no fan, but, that's not the point. It's that Planescape occupies a privileged position where changes cannot be made. I mean, look at the other Meta-setting, Spelljammer. Spelljammer has all sorts of very specific elements that relate to all sorts of iconic monsters - beholders, githyanki, etc. Yet, all the Spelljammer stuff is entirely self contained and completely divorced from core material.

Since Spelljammer is supposed to be just as "core" as Planescape - all the SJ elements are meant to be universal to all D&D settings - why is it perfectly acceptable to completely ignore SJ?

 

[Savage Wombat]

Look, as far as hating Planescape, that's gotten blown way out of proportion. It's not that I hate Planescape. Well, sure, I'm no fan, but, that's not the point. It's that Planescape occupies a privileged position where changes cannot be made. I mean, look at the other Meta-setting, Spelljammer. Spelljammer has all sorts of very specific elements that relate to all sorts of iconic monsters - beholders, githyanki, etc. Yet, all the Spelljammer stuff is entirely self contained and completely divorced from core material.

I'm no expert, but I don't know that that's true. Off the top of my head, I know that the 3.5 information about Neogi strongly referenced Spelljammer, if not by name. And I don't remember anyone specifically changing beholders in or out of SJ.

I think that the "Planescape occupies a privileged position" is just your particular perspective on the argument.

 

[Hussar]

I'm no expert, but I don't know that that's true. Off the top of my head, I know that the 3.5 information about Neogi strongly referenced Spelljammer, if not by name. And I don't remember anyone specifically changing beholders in or out of SJ.

I think that the "Planescape occupies a privileged position" is just your particular perspective on the argument.

Oh, because no one else has mentioned it at all.

Neogi pretty much only appear in SJ, so, it kinda makes sense that they would reference SJ. Yet, Githyanki, Beholders, and various other creatures that appear in multiple settings, do not reference SJ at all. Demons, devils and various other planar creatures appear in multiple settings, yet, must reference PS every single time and cannot be changed. How is this not a privileged position?

 

[Savage Wombat]

Demons, devils and various other planar creatures appear in multiple settings, yet, must reference PS every single time and cannot be changed. How is this not a privileged position?

Except, again, what you are referring as "referencing PS" is what others call "maintaining continuity from 2nd ed forward." Your PS focus is your particular bugbear here.

 

[Hussar]

But the only continuity is PS continuity. That's my problem. 2e made PS the default setting for all planar stuff, regardless of setting.

No other setting occupies this position. I only reference "The Weave" when I'm talking about magic in FR. Magic isn't universal. It changes by setting.

Why can't planar elements be the same?

 

[Savage Wombat]

But the only continuity is PS continuity. That's my problem. 2e made PS the default setting for all planar stuff, regardless of setting.

See, you keep getting it wrong. The stuff you call PS continuity is, in fact, just the 2e continuity. Not the continuity from one boxed set - the continuity from the core rules. Because the issue you keep bringing up is the description of the outsiders - which was laid out in the MM.

If you complained about Planescape "cant" showing up in FR modules I'd be more supportive. But the portrayal of the monsters in question predates Planescape.

But you've been told this before.

 

[Hussar]

See, you keep getting it wrong. The stuff you call PS continuity is, in fact, just the 2e continuity. Not the continuity from one boxed set - the continuity from the core rules. Because the issue you keep bringing up is the description of the outsiders - which was laid out in the MM.

If you complained about Planescape "cant" showing up in FR modules I'd be more supportive. But the portrayal of the monsters in question predates Planescape.

But you've been told this before.

Fair enough I suppose. I lump the planar Monstrous Compendium (MC 8, 1991?) in with Planescape since that's where the whole Blood War thing begins. Note, before that, most of the monsters actually already exist with their own lore, but, that all gets rewritten in 2e.

Note, Demons and Devils weren't even core in 2e, at least not until fairly late in the run. If you're referencing the Monstrous Manual, that's 1993, about 5 years into 2e's run. Demons and Devils were actually not part of 2e core cosmology at all, since demons and devils were removed from the game. That's why we have the renaming into Tanaari and Baatezu (sp).

Granted, I lump them together, but, that's because they are part of the same problem - TSR ramming setting specific material onto the game when it's not needed.

That's what utterly baffles me. When WOTC came out with 4e and had a fair bit of pretty setting specific lore attached to it, people freaked. But, 5e is doing the same thing, largely, and it's okay. Looking at things like the the Salamander and Fire Snake previews. Now all Salamanders are slaves to Efreet and automatically hate Azer's? Really?

How is this not incredibly intrusive into your game? Now every official product will automatically need to include the City of Brass, Efreeti overlords and slave Salamanders.

Compare this to the 2e writeup:

Salamanders are native to the elemental plane of Fire. They come to the Prime Material plane for reasons known only to them, though it is rumored that powerful wizards and priests of certain religions can summon them for a short time. Salamanders hate cold, preferring temperatures of 300 degrees or more; they can abide lower temperatures for only a few hours. Their lairs are typically at least 500 degrees. Any treasure found there is the sort that can survive this heat, such as swords, armor, rods, other ferrous items, and jewels. Things of a combustible nature, such as parchment and wood, soft metals such as gold and silver, and liquids, which quickly boil away, are never found in salamander lairs.
Having a nasty disposition and an evil bent, salamanders respect only power, either the ability to resist their fire or the capability to do great damage. Anyone else is dealt a painful, slow, burning death. It is rumored that they have some sort of dealings with the efreeti.
When encountered on the Prime plane, salamanders can be found playing in forest fires, lava flows, fire pits, and other areas of extreme heat. They usually appear on the Prime plane for a purpose, and if in the middle of a task they do not take kindly to being interrupted.

To me, that's a much, much lighter touch.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's what utterly baffles me. When WOTC came out with 4e and had a fair bit of pretty setting specific lore attached to it, people freaked. But, 5e is doing the same thing, largely, and it's okay. Looking at things like the the Salamander and Fire Snake previews. Now all Salamanders are slaves to Efreet and automatically hate Azer's? Really?

How is this not incredibly intrusive into your game? Now every official product will automatically need to include the City of Brass, Efreeti overlords and slave Salamanders.

I think one thing you're seeing is that 4e changed the lore, while 5e's lore...mostly...just builds on the lore. There's nothing in that 5e salamander entry that contradicts the info you posted from the 2e salamander, it's just more, more depth, more Proper Nouns (aka, BRANDING!).

Compare that to "Archons are elementals now, IT IS BETTER, DEAL WITH IT!"

5e's touch is as deep as 4e's, but it is more respecting of the tradition it comes from, so it's less likely to step on toes.

Compare this to the 2e writeup:

To me, that's a much, much lighter touch.

I like the 2e write-up better because (A) it has ambiguity and leaves room for DMs to tell their own stories (it is more inspiration than dictation), and (B) it's very useful in actually making an encounter. The 2e entry tells me first and foremost what it's like to meet this thing in a dungeon or in a hex, and lets me as the DM figure out the whys and wherefores (with some hints). The 5e entry has a specific (and fairly over-done) story about YASR (Yet Another Slave Race) and tries to hard to fill in the gaps. I feel now like if I was using the default assumptions in the MM that if I wanted to use Salamanders I'd also have to use efreet and azers in some way or fail to be delivering on the story that people will expect from reading the MM.

Which points to me being as disappointed by the 5e MM as I was in the idea of the 5e One True Cosmology, for much the same reason.

 

[Mr Fixit]

No other setting occupies this position. I only reference "The Weave" when I'm talking about magic in FR. Magic isn't universal. It changes by setting.

Ahem, about that...

Player's Handbook seems to define all magic in terms of the Weave, or, as it should rightly be called, String Theory, Fantasy Edition.