Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6389482" data-attributes="member: 2067">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. 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.</blockquote>