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

[Hussar]

[MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]althalis - I'd much, much prefer that we pared down things like dragons. Good grief, the 5e MM is about 10-15% dragons. Why? Why not have one entry for Dragon and give a method for building a dragon from a basic chassis considering that pretty much all dragons are virtually identical? Do we really need separate entries for five different kinds of colour coded dragon when the only difference between one and another is breath weapon type and terrain?

As far as humanoids go, I'd be all for paring that list down to Humanoid - Medium and going from there. Mechanically, there's virtually no difference between a goblin and an orc. Everything from a kobold to a bugbear could be done in a single monster manual entry.

D&D has never been a generic game, I'll agree. But, it's always been a setting light game. There is no single setting for D&D. That has always been the biggest strength of D&D over virtually every other game out there - you can use the setting light elements of D&D to create campaigns that are very different, despite starting from a fairly similar starting point.

But, The Planes have always been outside that. They are not setting light, they're setting heavy. And they've done nothing but get heavier and heavier as time has gone on. Imagine for a second that they changed a Vrock as much as kobolds or halflings have changed across editions. Good grief, changing a Succubus from demon to devil, but leaving virtually everything else the same caused people to lose their minds. All because The Planes are not setting light. The Planes is a fully fleshed out setting in its own right and, as such, can't be changed.

Which would be fine except that that single setting, along with all the baggage of that single setting, is then rammed into every other setting whether it fits or not.

You talk about humans living in different kingdoms. Really? Where does it specify what kinds of places humans live in in core D&D? What single place do humans come from? What single viewpoint do all humans share? What single culture do all humans conform to?

If humans have no single culture, or place of origin or viewpoint, why do all outer planar creatures need one single, solitary point of origin? Why are all demons born of the abyss, all are CE and all fight in the Blood War? Why are all devils from Hell and must belong in the hierarchy of Hell? No other creatures in D&D are forced to conform to a single vision in the way that extra planar creatures are. And it absolutely baffles me why this is so acceptable to gamers when any attempt to the exact same thing to any other creature or game element would get crucified.

 

[Nivenus]

Which would be fine except that that single setting, along with all the baggage of that single setting, is then rammed into every other setting whether it fits or not.

You talk about humans living in different kingdoms. Really? Where does it specify what kinds of places humans live in in core D&D? What single place do humans come from? What single viewpoint do all humans share? What single culture do all humans conform to?

If humans have no single culture, or place of origin or viewpoint, why do all outer planar creatures need one single, solitary point of origin? Why are all demons born of the abyss, all are CE and all fight in the Blood War? Why are all devils from Hell and must belong in the hierarchy of Hell? No other creatures in D&D are forced to conform to a single vision in the way that extra planar creatures are. And it absolutely baffles me why this is so acceptable to gamers when any attempt to the exact same thing to any other creature or game element would get crucified.

Except that's not actually true. The Great Wheel isn't forced on every setting (or hasn't been since 2e anyway). It's just the assumed cosmology. Eberron doesn't use it at all (indeed, 4e forced its cosmology more on Eberron more than 3e did) and unless WotC intends to cause as big of an uproar in the Eberron fandom as the 4e changes to Toril stoked among FR fans they're unlikely to change that policy.

Devils aren't from Hell in Eberron; they're from Khyber (originally) and also inhabit Fernia and Shavarath. Demons aren't from the Abyss; they're (also) from Khyber and can be found as well in Dolurrh, Fernia, Mabar, Risia, and Shavarath. The Blood War as such doesn't exist in Eberron, although devils and demons commonly do oppose one another (most frequently in Shavarath, where they also each battle celestials).

The enmity between devils and demons and the structure of the Great Wheel are assumed defaults in D&D, but they aren't necessarily forced on anyone. Other settings are free to make use of, modify, or discard such assumptions, the same way they can make use of, modify, or discard the assumptions the core books make about drow culture, orcs' worship of Gruumsh, and the various natures of chromatic and metallic dragons. A lot of settings - like the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk - make relatively few alterations to what the core rulebooks have to say. Others, like Eberron (or Dark Sun), make a lot of changes and even omit a fair amount that doesn't jive with their themes.

 

[Elderbrain]

@<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=50658" target="_blank">Rem</a></u></strong></em>althalis - I'd much, much prefer that we pared down things like dragons. Good grief, the 5e MM is about 10-15% dragons. Why? Why not have one entry for Dragon and give a method for building a dragon from a basic chassis considering that pretty much all dragons are virtually identical? Do we really need separate entries for five different kinds of colour coded dragon when the only difference between one and another is breath weapon type and terrain?

As far as humanoids go, I'd be all for paring that list down to Humanoid - Medium and going from there. Mechanically, there's virtually no difference between a goblin and an orc. Everything from a kobold to a bugbear could be done in a single monster manual entry.

- I'm actually gonna agree with you on this one, Hussar... provided that they include mods for that single Stat block that would let different humanoids have some mechanical difference (and allowing for different gear, weapons, etc.) They HAVE cut down Dragon stats to Wyrmling, Young, Adult and Ancient, but they could go further and thereby allow more room for Dragon variants (I.e Gem Dragons, etc.) As long as different color Dragons behave differently and have their special breath attacks, I'd be fine seeing them built on the same "frame". Same with humanoids, because then they could fit more types in one book.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about killing off, say, the Goblin sub-races and having only one type of Goblin; I'm talking about having one entry and Stat block with modifications to make different types of Goblins, or whatever. The entry should still describe the differences between, say, Hobgoblins and Bugbears.

 

[Hussar]

Except that's not actually true. The Great Wheel isn't forced on every setting (or hasn't been since 2e anyway). It's just the assumed cosmology. Eberron doesn't use it at all (indeed, 4e forced its cosmology more on Eberron more than 3e did) and unless WotC intends to cause as big of an uproar in the Eberron fandom as the 4e changes to Toril stoked among FR fans they're unlikely to change that policy.

Devils aren't from Hell in Eberron; they're from Khyber (originally) and also inhabit Fernia and Shavarath. Demons aren't from the Abyss; they're (also) from Khyber and can be found as well in Dolurrh, Fernia, Mabar, Risia, and Shavarath. The Blood War as such doesn't exist in Eberron, although devils and demons commonly do oppose one another (most frequently in Shavarath, where they also each battle celestials).

The enmity between devils and demons and the structure of the Great Wheel are assumed defaults in D&D, but they aren't necessarily forced on anyone. Other settings are free to make use of, modify, or discard such assumptions, the same way they can make use of, modify, or discard the assumptions the core books make about drow culture, orcs' worship of Gruumsh, and the various natures of chromatic and metallic dragons. A lot of settings - like the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk - make relatively few alterations to what the core rulebooks have to say. Others, like Eberron (or Dark Sun), make a lot of changes and even omit a fair amount that doesn't jive with their themes.

The presumed defaults of The Planes go far beyond the presumed defaults of any other creatures or settings. The presumed defaults include a shopping list of proper nouns, many of which have lengthy, detailed write-ups. Every planar creature lives in a specific kingdom, and that kingdom is written in fairly lengthy detail. The relationships between all the major players are detailed. How is this not a complete setting? What would have to be added to the default to make this a complete setting?

Nothing else in the game gets this treatment. Not since 1e have the relationships between the races been given much detail. Sure, dwarves live in the mountains, digging mines, but, which mountains? What are they mining? Are they rich or poor? What is their political structure? How do they feel about the elves in general? And, where do the elves live besides, "in a forest"? Sure, 4e Tieflings came from Bael Turath (sp) but, even then, that's set in the distant past and pretty easily ignorable. If I ignore the idea that Yugoloth are mercenaries, they stop being Yuguloth according to some.

Note, I'm not talking about what I do at my table, I'm talking about published material.

Sure, specific settings might change The Planes. But that only helps me if I want to play in that setting. Like I've repeatedly said where's my environmental setting source book for the Planes? Why do every planar monster in the Monster Manual have to conform to The Planes? Etc.

 

[Nivenus]

Every planar creature lives in a specific kingdom, and that kingdom is written in fairly lengthy detail. The relationships between all the major players are detailed.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "specific kingdom." To me, the Abyss and Gehenna aren't really kingdoms; their structure as described in most rulebooks that aren't specifically plane-focused is usually pretty loosely defined. What's the geography of the Abyss? Neither the Player's Handbook nor the Monster Manual really have much to say about that. Who are the dominant ultroloths? Well there's the General of Gehenna, but he's basically a mythic figure whose existence is kind of up to the player/DM's discretion but other than that the MM doesn't say.

I'll grant you that the Hells are a bit more clearly defined; there's a pretty consistent list of archdevils from 1e on with a few minor changes (usually near the bottom of the hierarchy) from one edition to another. But that's kind of the exception; most of the relationships between planar creatures are actually kind of loosely defined. Yeah devils don't get along with demons but neither do hobgoblins and orcs (or drow and anybody). Yeah, Graz'zt's a prominent demon lord who pops up all over the place, but Lolth is generally pretty popular as well (showing up in Greyhawk, FR, and Nentir Vale separately).

I also find it a bit odd that you seem to focus specifically on fiends. What about the celestial races? Angels are almost always defined as the servants of good gods; what if you want to have evil angels? That seems to me as much of a change to the basic lore as getting demons and devils to work together (which, despite the Blood War, does happen on occasion even in "generic" settings). What about dwarves? The 5e PHB and 3e MM (among other sources) define them as three distinct sub-races and describe their sentiments towards other races, such an enmity for goblins and a distrust of elves. Doesn't seem that different from describing the rivalries between different varieties of fiends to me.

Note, I'm not talking about what I do at my table, I'm talking about published material.

Sure, specific settings might change The Planes. But that only helps me if I want to play in that setting. Like I've repeatedly said where's my environmental setting source book for the Planes? Why do every planar monster in the Monster Manual have to conform to The Planes? Etc.

Except that's not what you said:

Which would be fine except that that single setting, along with all the baggage of that single setting, is then rammed into every other setting whether it fits or not.

My point about Eberron was in specific response to that.

In any case, I think (ATM) 5e's lore is loosely defined enough that you can take it or leave it as you like. I agree that in general WotC should support a diversity of world-styles rather than pressing everyone to use the Great Wheel / World Axis / etc., but I don't see how having an assumed default cosmology contradicts that, particularly when the rules explicitly give you permission to use or dispose of it as you like.

 

[Hussar]

Well, to be completely honest, since the celestial races are all good, they don't feature as antagonists in my games, so, quite honestly, I don't know much about them. If they were ejected from the game, it would make zero difference to me. I can't think of a single time I have actually added one into a game as an antagonist, although, I have tossed them in as an NPC once in a very long while. And, to be fair, describing which team a critter plays for doesn't overly bother me. There's a bajillion evil critters out there to choose from, so, having some Team Good critters isn't too much to ask for.

The difference I would see between, say, dwarves and planar creatures is that dwarves get painted with a very light brush. And, while there might be three sub-races in the Monster Manual, there are a bajillion different dwarves in even generic books. I can find dwarves living in towns, cities, forests, deserts, and dwarves of every alignment serving any master, or being masters themselves. If I pick up a dwarf source book, or a module featuring dwarves, it's not like it will only talk about dwarves that live under mountains digging for gold. That might be the baseline, but, in the source books, there's a huge amount of variance.

Same goes for elves. You might find elves pretty much anywhere in any role. The stereotypical tree hugging hippy elf is just that - one stereotype. You get all sorts of elves ranging from wild elves to high elves. Forests and deserts to cities and castles.

Put it this way. If I pick up a module and tell you that there is a Glabrezu as the primary antagonist, you can pretty much guess what that module is going to be about. Setting might vary, but, you know what's going to be in that module. If I pick up a module and tell you that a Dwarf is the primary antagonist, you have no idea what that module is about.

 

[Remathilis]

Put it this way. If I pick up a module and tell you that there is a Glabrezu as the primary antagonist, you can pretty much guess what that module is going to be about. Setting might vary, but, you know what's going to be in that module. If I pick up a module and tell you that a Dwarf is the primary antagonist, you have no idea what that module is about.

Dwarf is primary antagonist tells me.

* Underground dungeon, probably in the side of a mountain
* Lots of stonework traps
* A Magical axe probably as treasure somewhere.
* Something to do with either goblins, orcs, or giants.
* A Very good chance of Duergar
* In a word: Moria.

Now sure, you could switch it up on me by going against the tropes, but then again, I've seen some great examples of glaberzu used in non-traditional settings (the one who set up shop on the Infinite Staircase is a good example). In fact, I can think of a few examples of fiends in non-traditional roles (there is a demon and a devil living together, not necessarily peacefully, in Strahd's castle; Akin the Arcanoloth owns a shop in Sigil), probably a site more than I can think of non-traditional dwarven settings, regardless the name of the kingdom.

Got an examples of non-traditional dwarven adventures not ultilzing my list above?

 

[I'm A Banana]

[MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]althalis - I'd much, much prefer that we pared down things like dragons. Good grief, the 5e MM is about 10-15% dragons. Why? Why not have one entry for Dragon and give a method for building a dragon from a basic chassis considering that pretty much all dragons are virtually identical? Do we really need separate entries for five different kinds of colour coded dragon when the only difference between one and another is breath weapon type and terrain?

As far as humanoids go, I'd be all for paring that list down to Humanoid - Medium and going from there. Mechanically, there's virtually no difference between a goblin and an orc. Everything from a kobold to a bugbear could be done in a single monster manual entry.

Well, this is another convo, but the reason we have goblins and orcs and red dragons and brass dragons is the same reason we have nine levels of spells, four classes, ranged and melee attacks, elves and dwarves, d6's and d10's: they make interesting variety. They're all unnecessary, but if we were interested in a minimalistic game where only the necessary rules existed, we'd all just be playing make-believe. Clearly there are things other than necessity we are interested in as players.

Without alignments, PS is still interested in having places to explore how peace, altruism, justice, hard work, and idyllic splendor can be corrupt, dangerous, wrong-headed and simply untrue. The Upper Planes serve that purpose in PS, regardless of if one has characters and NPCs with explicit mechanical alignment. A variety of them still serves to demonstrate that the multiverse is very multifaceted -- that there are many ways to conceive of paradise (as many as there are ways to conceive of disaster!) and that they all have flaws. It creates a diversity of locations to explore the themes of utopia, perfection, and the desirability of things in. PS enjoys this because there might be a lot of time spent exploring that -- one tier of my PS structure is in exploring how getting what you want is not always what you want for a substantially similar reason.

Put it this way. If I pick up a module and tell you that there is a Glabrezu as the primary antagonist, you can pretty much guess what that module is going to be about. Setting might vary, but, you know what's going to be in that module. If I pick up a module and tell you that a Dwarf is the primary antagonist, you have no idea what that module is about.

Personally, I think this is a bit of a weakness in the D&D idea of a dwarf. But I'm a fan of iconic stories -- I should use a dwarf as an antagonist only when being a dwarf adds something specific to the antagonist that other races would not as easily add.

As an aside, I picked up the MM over the weekend, and I had much less problem with it than I thought I might. It seems like they present a story that you are free to take and leave, and the story has no real bearing on the stats or actions of the creature in play. There is a fence between the mechanics and the fiction in the MM. While it might not be how I would've done it, I'm hard pressed to say it's a mistake -- as long as WotC can follow their own advice here and not be overly married to the stories presented therein, there's a lot of optimism going forward. Some of the stories are quite good. I don't know that I'll use any of them (I've got my own stories to tell), but they're perfect for a newbie DM looking for inspiration, and they'll probably even influence my own.

No, my yugoloths will not be using their MM story. Hopefully, when they get around to publishing something Planescape, those yugoloths will also not need to use their MM story. That story is not the PS yugoloth story. But it's not a bad story, necessarily. It's just not right for every setting. And if they want to chuck those 'loths into Eberron, maybe they'll have their own unique story there, too.

As long as WotC treats the planes as just as modular as any other element of the game, it'll probably be just fine.

 

[Remathilis]

[MENTION=50658]Remathilis[/MENTION] - I'd much, much prefer that we pared down things like dragons. Good grief, the 5e MM is about 10-15% dragons. Why? Why not have one entry for Dragon and give a method for building a dragon from a basic chassis considering that pretty much all dragons are virtually identical? Do we really need separate entries for five different kinds of colour coded dragon when the only difference between one and another is breath weapon type and terrain?

As far as humanoids go, I'd be all for paring that list down to Humanoid - Medium and going from there. Mechanically, there's virtually no difference between a goblin and an orc. Everything from a kobold to a bugbear could be done in a single monster manual entry.

Then, (quite frankly) it wouldn't be D&D.

You could probably pair down a bunch of monsters: do we need dozens of demons, devils, AND daemons (lets just make one superbad fiend monster). How about clay, stone, and Iron golems (just one construct would do fine). We could merge shadows, ghosts, poltergeists, wraiths and specters into one also (call them haunts). How about pixies/sprites/grigs/leprechauns as one fey? nymphs, dryads, nereids, fauns and sylphs as another? Ghouls, ghasts, wights, mummies AND liches? Fire, frost, stone, mountain, AND hill giants? Do we NEED two types of sphinx, three different types of beholders, etc, etc.

I'm sure with enough redaction, I could get the 5e Monster Manual to under a hundred pages, art included.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm sure with enough redaction, I could get the 5e Monster Manual to under a hundred pages, art included.

I mean, the logical endpoint of this is a D&D Lite consisting of one sentence: "Make Up Fun Stuff With Friends."

All the variety we have in the game is unnecessary. Really, our ENTIRE HOBBY is unnecessary. But it does serve a purpose.