Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
I’m sorry, but this sounds like you need to either play at tables that think similarly or run games like this. I do not see why your need for races to be distinct (in this way) means that it is a problem. This loosening of racial criteria actually supports world-building because it makes room for more diversity within each race. If you do not like it, then do not feel you have to use it. Your personal preferences are not indicative of a problem however. None of my above examples are problematic narratively or from a mechanical standpoint. I was the player that had the ogrillon parent in my game and it allowed for a lot of interesting benefits that could be leveraged and problems that needed to be overcome. It was fun to play, it was different, and fortunately for me, no one was stuck on what my racial limitations should have been.
If your DM allowed you to do it, then why do the books need to take things like age and size group out? Sounds like you need to stick with tables that think similarly or run games like this.
Why? Well, WotC has made it clear that they are trying to be more inclusive as a general rule, with an official position that reflects that openness and flexibility. I am sure that last sentence was intended to wound, but I agree with you and so far, there has been no shortage of reasonable and accommodating tables to play at. I hope to stay far from the kinds of people who feel some kind of compulsion to tell me the correct way to have fun. People have been making these exact kinds of adjustments for decades. How many people play elves who are 5ft tall? I am certain that most people gravitate more towards the LotR style of elves. Are they having fun the wrong way too? If someone needs to create extreme examples to make their argument, their argument is not really logically sound. It is hysteria.
Why? Well, WotC has made it clear that they are trying to be more inclusive as a general rule, with an official position that reflects that openness and flexibility. I am sure that last sentence was intended to wound, but I agree with you and so far, there has been no shortage of reasonable and accommodating tables to play at. I hope to stay far from the kinds of people who feel some kind of compulsion to tell me the correct way to have fun. People have been making these exact kinds of adjustments for decades. How many people play elves who are 5ft tall? I am certain that most people gravitate more towards the LotR style of elves. Are they having fun the wrong way too? If someone needs to create extreme examples to make their argument, their argument is not really logically sound. It is hysteria.
I will say that everything is in the one multiverse now... I believe there should be a clause "your size and age is up to you and the DM to determine, but in most D&D worlds you can use the following guidelines as inspiration for your character: [your lineage] is [such and such] height and has a [such and such] life expectancy, on average. These rules are for greater inter-lineage equality - kobolds do not have as long a life expectancy as an in most D&D worlds as an elf, for example, as kobolds are far more frail on average in worlds such as the Forgotten Realms. However, in your world, kobolds might live for millennia and elves die every two decades. It's up to you. Just keep things fun!"
I love that. I think you included perhaps the most important thing, which I believe many are losing sight of: Just keep things fun.
Hello Erriku,
I do not have a scholarship in these things, I have never physically encountered a racial argument, and so my wisdom is just untested hypothesis. I try to help, and I'm glad you like it. It means a lot.
I've read the entire discussion thus far. And yes, the bottom line is: the DM makes the final calls.
Doing away with racially-tied ASIs is...fine? I don't personally like it much but I also don't think it really hurts anything. I get that they're trying to give players the most amount of choice and flexibility in building a character.
I do think the removal of specific age limits/ranges and heights is, well, dumb. The books can say whatever they want; there will be no five foot halflings or 36 inch goliaths in my game. Y'all can do whatever you want, of course.
If you eliminate racial characteristics, you are just erasing them completely. What’s the point of having the different races? How do you define a halfling now? Or elf? Or dwarf? If we’re at the first session and the DM says describe your character and someone says “you see a dwarf”, what does that even mean? Just eliminate all races and say everyone is a human offshoot/mutant. Having defined age ranges and size groups is not limiting. It’s setting consistency.
If you eliminate racial characteristics, you are just erasing them completely. What’s the point of having the different races? How do you define a halfling now? Or elf? Or dwarf? If we’re at the first session and the DM says describe your character and someone says “you see a dwarf”, what does that even mean? Just eliminate all races and say everyone is a human offshoot/mutant. Having defined age ranges and size groups is not limiting. It’s setting consistency.
Racial traits, lore, genealogy, genetic diversity, cultural variation, etc. It doesn't seem like the direction things are taking eliminates the differences. It just softens the edges of certain differences and removes certain things from character creation that didn't really need to be there.
I've read the entire discussion thus far. And yes, the bottom line is: the DM makes the final calls.
Doing away with racially-tied ASIs is...fine? I don't personally like it much but I also don't think it really hurts anything. I get that they're trying to give players the most amount of choice and flexibility in building a character.
I do think the removal of specific age limits/ranges and heights is, well, dumb. The books can say whatever they want; there will be no five foot halflings or 36 inch goliaths in my game. Y'all can do whatever you want, of course.
Agreed. ASIs? Sure, that's understandable. But age and height? That's kind of starting to take away the base of what the different races actually are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
I wonder what stopped people from having Kobolds that have lived for millennia in their games before now? Rule Zero tells me that it wasn't the sourcebooks dictating otherwise.
If that's case, then the problem isn't with races being in D&D, is it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I've read the entire discussion thus far. And yes, the bottom line is: the DM makes the final calls.
Doing away with racially-tied ASIs is...fine? I don't personally like it much but I also don't think it really hurts anything. I get that they're trying to give players the most amount of choice and flexibility in building a character.
I do think the removal of specific age limits/ranges and heights is, well, dumb. The books can say whatever they want; there will be no five foot halflings or 36 inch goliaths in my game. Y'all can do whatever you want, of course.
Agreed. ASIs? Sure, that's understandable. But age and height? That's kind of starting to take away the base of what the different races actually are.
Myself as a DM I do not mind the floating ASI's at all, but I am thinking that if a player keeps his standard racial ASI's (aka Mountain Dwarf +2 STR and CON) that they can raise those attributes to 22 each, I would do this for each race the Dwarf was an example. But if they move just 1 of the ASI's to somewhere else they lose the ability to exceed 20 with either attribute. I'm still mentally debating this as it will have game balance issues generally at higher level play. What does anyone else think?
If you eliminate racial characteristics, you are just erasing them completely. What’s the point of having the different races? How do you define a halfling now? Or elf? Or dwarf? If we’re at the first session and the DM says describe your character and someone says “you see a dwarf”, what does that even mean? Just eliminate all races and say everyone is a human offshoot/mutant. Having defined age ranges and size groups is not limiting. It’s setting consistency.
Dude. We did this exact same debate last year. This is one such thread where we had it in:
You've made your arguments. I've made mine. More people agree with my side than yours. Repeating things won't change them. Eliminating minor racial effects doesn't homogenize the races. Removing an Aarakocra's DEX bonus doesn't suddenly make them stop being bird-people. They still have wings, still have talons, still have their lore. The same applies to every other race in the game, because none of them are defined solely (or even at all for most of them) by their racial Ability Score Increases, alignment, or even Size on most occasions (except Halflings, although they're an odd case, basically just being short Humans that are brave and lucky for unknown reasons).
I’m torn on the language, size, and alignment thing, I think they should have left it as is and just put in a sidebar saying if someone wants to play a 3’6” dwarf they should be Small, and a Halfling that’s been raised by dragonborn can swap Halfling for Draconic
The spell thing is AWESOME. I hate tracking monster spell slots and looking up and memorizing all their combat spells, and this fixes all my problems. It’s perfect.
The whole “typically” thing in alignment on the stat blocks is great, and really doesn’t change anything for me.
The whole age thing is screwed. It was perfectly fine as is.
I've read the entire discussion thus far. And yes, the bottom line is: the DM makes the final calls.
Doing away with racially-tied ASIs is...fine? I don't personally like it much but I also don't think it really hurts anything. I get that they're trying to give players the most amount of choice and flexibility in building a character.
I do think the removal of specific age limits/ranges and heights is, well, dumb. The books can say whatever they want; there will be no five foot halflings or 36 inch goliaths in my game. Y'all can do whatever you want, of course.
Agreed. ASIs? Sure, that's understandable. But age and height? That's kind of starting to take away the base of what the different races actually are.
I agree. Flexible ASI's I see as a good thing.
Muddling with age and size I don't like, and it makes me nervous. I still want races to have racial features, I just don't want ability scores tied to race. I don't want say, elves to lose Trance, etc.
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Let’s start with the obvious things. Alignment on monster changes is perfect, many many of us DMs started ignoring alignment anyway long ago, I know my orcs and goblins have been a mix of allignments over the years and I have always said if a Player can have a lawful good bugbear then they exist in the world.
Next spells, again happy with this, as a DM the list of spells in the monster manual can get a bit of an admin issue meaning that monsters/NPCs with many spells make me as dm slow things down. As for counter spell let’s not make assumptions until the rules are announced. That spell might change.
I am happy new races won’t waste ink with yet more languages, wider language choice doesn’t add to the game, if I want my players to read a thing I have the document, sign, book in one of the many languages they speak, if I want to make it challenging I don’t. If language is important in your world great add more. For me it adds a little flavor but that’s it.
So height age etc, you know what I have no issue with this either you know why, because as DM I still define the rules for my game and table. I still decide how long races live in my game. In my world average humans live to about 75, elves live to about 1100, dwarves 200ish, gnomes live to 500 and halflings (who in my world are a cross between gnomes and humans) 150.
Height, I couldn’t care less but if a player wanted to be a tall halfling that’s fine, they lose the ability to occupy the same space as another person but gain 5 feet of movement. If a person wanted to play a small human, and I had a player who wanted to be Tyrion in one game, great, gain those logical traits of taking up less space but having less movement.
All WOTC are doing is actually moving more towards Gary’s original vision of DND, a set of guidelines that DMs are free to interpret as they wish. Far too many have become obsessed with RAW when it comes to alignment (how many arguments because a dm has the gall to admit to putting lawful good duregar in a campaign), racial traits and things like how a halfling must be. There can be no little elves, humans, orcs, Goliath’s, no tall gnomes or goblins.
I am sorry if you are suddenly going to have to figure this stuff out in your world, it isn’t hard and I imagine that 99% of tables will stick to the old idea of age etc. I will ask from a roleplay perspective who actually assumes the 200 year gnome knows more or has more life experience then a 35 year old human? We hand wave it away round a table, like somehow the gnome spent 40 years learning to read, write and add up vs the human 7 years. Takes longer to mature does not mean slower at learning. So really mechanically saying all characters are roughly the same age kind of makes sense.
I've read the entire discussion thus far. And yes, the bottom line is: the DM makes the final calls.
Doing away with racially-tied ASIs is...fine? I don't personally like it much but I also don't think it really hurts anything. I get that they're trying to give players the most amount of choice and flexibility in building a character.
I do think the removal of specific age limits/ranges and heights is, well, dumb. The books can say whatever they want; there will be no five foot halflings or 36 inch goliaths in my game. Y'all can do whatever you want, of course.
Agreed. ASIs? Sure, that's understandable. But age and height? That's kind of starting to take away the base of what the different races actually are.
I wonder what stopped people from having Kobolds that have lived for millennia in their games before now? Rule Zero tells me that it wasn't the sourcebooks dictating otherwise.
If that's case, then the problem isn't with races being in D&D, is it?
From how I see it, it is less about preserving existing lore and more about being shoved in the face with it. This is not an issue for most GMs, since once they have a modicum of experience, they generally will want to homebrew and houserule away from plain old RAW. However, having a more free form character creation process and clearer separation of lore and mechanics gives completely-brand-spanking-new GMs and players a better impression that D&D is theirs to mold and shape, and it is really only limited by the imagination. I assume Wizards wants to sell D&D to new GMs and players as a medium that can bring their fantasy to life rather than having someone else's fantasy being imposed on them.
I love Bionicle, Star Wars, and all LEGO themes with a pre-existing story, but many builders also like the more free form themes like Castle, City, Space, Technic, Classic, etc. where builders can tell their own stories, or even not tell stories at all and focus on other aspects of LEGO. For LEGO, putting more emphasis on stories is one of the factors that help save the company from financial ruin, and the explosion of Bionicle and many Millenials' nostalgia for that theme is a testament to the emphasis on story 20 years ago.
For Wizards' D&D, they already have plenty of stories to tell. However, the perception of D&D is that it is still made by and for old white men. I think Wizards is trying to move D&D's image away from that to something more neutral. When I think of LEGO, I think of a LEGO brick that can unlock people's imagination and bring it to life. When I think of D&D, I think of literal dungeons and dragons of course, but there is also a hero that is a white warrior dude in armor with a sword exploring said dungeons and slaying said dragons.
Why? Well, WotC has made it clear that they are trying to be more inclusive as a general rule, with an official position that reflects that openness and flexibility. I am sure that last sentence was intended to wound, but I agree with you and so far, there has been no shortage of reasonable and accommodating tables to play at. I hope to stay far from the kinds of people who feel some kind of compulsion to tell me the correct way to have fun. People have been making these exact kinds of adjustments for decades. How many people play elves who are 5ft tall? I am certain that most people gravitate more towards the LotR style of elves. Are they having fun the wrong way too? If someone needs to create extreme examples to make their argument, their argument is not really logically sound. It is hysteria.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I will say that everything is in the one multiverse now... I believe there should be a clause "your size and age is up to you and the DM to determine, but in most D&D worlds you can use the following guidelines as inspiration for your character: [your lineage] is [such and such] height and has a [such and such] life expectancy, on average. These rules are for greater inter-lineage equality - kobolds do not have as long a life expectancy as an in most D&D worlds as an elf, for example, as kobolds are far more frail on average in worlds such as the Forgotten Realms. However, in your world, kobolds might live for millennia and elves die every two decades. It's up to you. Just keep things fun!"
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Hello Yamana_Eajii,
I love that. I think you included perhaps the most important thing, which I believe many are losing sight of: Just keep things fun.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Hello Erriku,
I do not have a scholarship in these things, I have never physically encountered a racial argument, and so my wisdom is just untested hypothesis. I try to help, and I'm glad you like it. It means a lot.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I've read the entire discussion thus far. And yes, the bottom line is: the DM makes the final calls.
Doing away with racially-tied ASIs is...fine? I don't personally like it much but I also don't think it really hurts anything. I get that they're trying to give players the most amount of choice and flexibility in building a character.
I do think the removal of specific age limits/ranges and heights is, well, dumb. The books can say whatever they want; there will be no five foot halflings or 36 inch goliaths in my game. Y'all can do whatever you want, of course.
I agree with @erriku. I like the elimination of racial limitations. I think it makes the game both more inclusive and more fun overall.
If you eliminate racial characteristics, you are just erasing them completely. What’s the point of having the different races? How do you define a halfling now? Or elf? Or dwarf? If we’re at the first session and the DM says describe your character and someone says “you see a dwarf”, what does that even mean? Just eliminate all races and say everyone is a human offshoot/mutant. Having defined age ranges and size groups is not limiting. It’s setting consistency.
Racial traits, lore, genealogy, genetic diversity, cultural variation, etc. It doesn't seem like the direction things are taking eliminates the differences. It just softens the edges of certain differences and removes certain things from character creation that didn't really need to be there.
Agreed. ASIs? Sure, that's understandable. But age and height? That's kind of starting to take away the base of what the different races actually are.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
I wonder what stopped people from having Kobolds that have lived for millennia in their games before now? Rule Zero tells me that it wasn't the sourcebooks dictating otherwise.
If that's case, then the problem isn't with races being in D&D, is it?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Myself as a DM I do not mind the floating ASI's at all, but I am thinking that if a player keeps his standard racial ASI's (aka Mountain Dwarf +2 STR and CON) that they can raise those attributes to 22 each, I would do this for each race the Dwarf was an example. But if they move just 1 of the ASI's to somewhere else they lose the ability to exceed 20 with either attribute. I'm still mentally debating this as it will have game balance issues generally at higher level play. What does anyone else think?
Dude. We did this exact same debate last year. This is one such thread where we had it in:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/73103-races-and-species?comment=199
You've made your arguments. I've made mine. More people agree with my side than yours. Repeating things won't change them. Eliminating minor racial effects doesn't homogenize the races. Removing an Aarakocra's DEX bonus doesn't suddenly make them stop being bird-people. They still have wings, still have talons, still have their lore. The same applies to every other race in the game, because none of them are defined solely (or even at all for most of them) by their racial Ability Score Increases, alignment, or even Size on most occasions (except Halflings, although they're an odd case, basically just being short Humans that are brave and lucky for unknown reasons).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I wouldn't let any ability scores exceed 20 without magic, period.
Kay, so my take on the new stuff:
I’m torn on the language, size, and alignment thing, I think they should have left it as is and just put in a sidebar saying if someone wants to play a 3’6” dwarf they should be Small, and a Halfling that’s been raised by dragonborn can swap Halfling for Draconic
The spell thing is AWESOME. I hate tracking monster spell slots and looking up and memorizing all their combat spells, and this fixes all my problems. It’s perfect.
The whole “typically” thing in alignment on the stat blocks is great, and really doesn’t change anything for me.
The whole age thing is screwed. It was perfectly fine as is.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
I agree. Flexible ASI's I see as a good thing.
Muddling with age and size I don't like, and it makes me nervous. I still want races to have racial features, I just don't want ability scores tied to race. I don't want say, elves to lose Trance, etc.
Let’s start with the obvious things. Alignment on monster changes is perfect, many many of us DMs started ignoring alignment anyway long ago, I know my orcs and goblins have been a mix of allignments over the years and I have always said if a Player can have a lawful good bugbear then they exist in the world.
Next spells, again happy with this, as a DM the list of spells in the monster manual can get a bit of an admin issue meaning that monsters/NPCs with many spells make me as dm slow things down. As for counter spell let’s not make assumptions until the rules are announced. That spell might change.
I am happy new races won’t waste ink with yet more languages, wider language choice doesn’t add to the game, if I want my players to read a thing I have the document, sign, book in one of the many languages they speak, if I want to make it challenging I don’t. If language is important in your world great add more. For me it adds a little flavor but that’s it.
So height age etc, you know what I have no issue with this either you know why, because as DM I still define the rules for my game and table. I still decide how long races live in my game. In my world average humans live to about 75, elves live to about 1100, dwarves 200ish, gnomes live to 500 and halflings (who in my world are a cross between gnomes and humans) 150.
Height, I couldn’t care less but if a player wanted to be a tall halfling that’s fine, they lose the ability to occupy the same space as another person but gain 5 feet of movement. If a person wanted to play a small human, and I had a player who wanted to be Tyrion in one game, great, gain those logical traits of taking up less space but having less movement.
All WOTC are doing is actually moving more towards Gary’s original vision of DND, a set of guidelines that DMs are free to interpret as they wish. Far too many have become obsessed with RAW when it comes to alignment (how many arguments because a dm has the gall to admit to putting lawful good duregar in a campaign), racial traits and things like how a halfling must be. There can be no little elves, humans, orcs, Goliath’s, no tall gnomes or goblins.
I am sorry if you are suddenly going to have to figure this stuff out in your world, it isn’t hard and I imagine that 99% of tables will stick to the old idea of age etc. I will ask from a roleplay perspective who actually assumes the 200 year gnome knows more or has more life experience then a 35 year old human? We hand wave it away round a table, like somehow the gnome spent 40 years learning to read, write and add up vs the human 7 years. Takes longer to mature does not mean slower at learning. So really mechanically saying all characters are roughly the same age kind of makes sense.
From how I see it, it is less about preserving existing lore and more about being shoved in the face with it. This is not an issue for most GMs, since once they have a modicum of experience, they generally will want to homebrew and houserule away from plain old RAW. However, having a more free form character creation process and clearer separation of lore and mechanics gives completely-brand-spanking-new GMs and players a better impression that D&D is theirs to mold and shape, and it is really only limited by the imagination. I assume Wizards wants to sell D&D to new GMs and players as a medium that can bring their fantasy to life rather than having someone else's fantasy being imposed on them.
I love Bionicle, Star Wars, and all LEGO themes with a pre-existing story, but many builders also like the more free form themes like Castle, City, Space, Technic, Classic, etc. where builders can tell their own stories, or even not tell stories at all and focus on other aspects of LEGO. For LEGO, putting more emphasis on stories is one of the factors that help save the company from financial ruin, and the explosion of Bionicle and many Millenials' nostalgia for that theme is a testament to the emphasis on story 20 years ago.
For Wizards' D&D, they already have plenty of stories to tell. However, the perception of D&D is that it is still made by and for old white men. I think Wizards is trying to move D&D's image away from that to something more neutral. When I think of LEGO, I think of a LEGO brick that can unlock people's imagination and bring it to life. When I think of D&D, I think of literal dungeons and dragons of course, but there is also a hero that is a white warrior dude in armor with a sword exploring said dungeons and slaying said dragons.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
*Cries in Druidic*
Ah well.
Are they re releasing the monster manual then on its own?
No. Not yet, at least.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!