D&D: WotC’s New Lore Changes Raise Questions Among Players

Quote from pangurjan >>

 That sort of basic stuff should be/is mentioned with the relevant mechanics. It's not something a player should find out about through a lore deep dive, it'll be in the actual rules part of the books. 

It's not though, beacuse remember we are talking about changes that include changes to relevant modifiers such as attribute score adjustments and other things we've previously covered.  Eitherway the lore helps flesh out why those modifiers exist.  It's not good enough to just no your character has a penalty under certain circumstances.  You want to understand why and what could you do to perhaps mitigate that penalty.  This might be a question you have IC that you then reseach by doing investigation checks to recieve some more lore from the DM; so perhaps some should be in DMG  or MM?; I'll have to look?; or it is lore you should know just from being a member of the race who grew up in a community thereof.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

I see no contradiction in those two blurbs?

What's the anger issue now.

 I am bamboozled. I am flabbergasted. I can't WAIT for Monsters of the Multiverse!! It's going to be GLORIOUS!!

When do we get it?!?

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

 

Also, no, the mechanics are slightly different.  5e only conveyes disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks.  It doesn't say that some of your magic literally stops working in sunlight.

It doesn't say that in the 5E rules because in 5E that's not the case. 

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

It's not though, beacuse remember we are talking about changes that include changes to relevant modifiers such as attribute score adjustments and other things we've previously covered.  Eitherway the lore helps flesh out why those modifiers exist.  It's not good enough to just no your character has a penalty under certain circumstances.  You want to understand why and what could you do to perhaps mitigate that penalty.  This might be a question you have IC that you then reseach by doing investigation checks to recieve some more lore from the DM; so perhaps some should be in DMG  or MM?; I'll have to look?; or it is lore you should know just from being a member of the race who grew up in a community thereof.

It's lore that's specific to the setting you're playing in. The reason for those modifiers can vary from one setting to the next. That's why it shouldn't be in the DMG or MM, it should be in a setting book. If whatever bit of background info on a race is missing, even from a sourcebook about the setting you're playing in, that's because there's only so much stuff that can get put in a book: that info you want might have been deemed not important enough to make the cut. In that case, the DM can see if they can find something online (with the caveat that if it's from a previous edition it doesn't necessarily hold true in this one) or just make it up. If it's a homebrew setting, the latter is even the default option. Something like mitigating a mechanical, race-based penalty is almost certainly going to be non-canon and thus up to the DM to deny altogether or create something for. 

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

So there's something called a character sheet where important factors like that are recorded, because as Pang points out, that's a mechanical component to the player race not "lore."  

I also want to point out you are making very broad arguments based in no real understanding of the game's history.  "Back then when players couldn't play Drow either" was a very brief period of time in the game's history.  Drow start getting represented in the old school fashion you hold dear in 78 or so as elements of the D series of modules, and get much more fleshed out to resonate with your rough understanding around 1980.  1985 Unearthed Arcana, the AD&D book comes out allowing for Drow as a playable race.  And if you don't think folks weren't already playing Drow prior to that book, you may want to look at what those arms deep in homebrew are up to.

I can't think of a single PC race that gets the deep lore dive in any editions PHB that would meet the sort of standard you're bemoaning as lost now to new players.  It's just a bogus argument, expecting every player to come to a table with a lore understanding on the same level as any DM.  That standard is fine for some sort of insular D&D clique building, but as it was explained before you came into this thread, and has been explained to you at least twice to you specifically since your arrival, both the "business" and "creative" sides of D&D clearly see no need in maintaining that sort of integral implicit gatekeeping for a lot of reasons (that have been largely exhausted, twice and again in reiteration for your benefit).

Any DM whose been playing enough knows how to deliver lore through exposition when needed but more through PC focused play through contextual narration.  Letting your table know what Drow are in your game world just isn't as hard as you plaintive postings seem to be making it.  Coaching a character to play a player race you have certain hang ups on a very specific way you want to play isn't hard.  The game's collaborative, not a dictatorship.  If a DM can't accommodate players, they wind up playing in their own world by themselves on a number of levels.

 Sigh.  This is starting to get a bit frustrating.  WoTC has already made changes to stat blocks too; like removing attribute penalties etc.  I have been ignoring those changes and still using the attribute penalties that used to be in the stat blocks.  Likewise; according to the Lore, which trumps the statblocks as far as I am concerned.  Drow Magic is impacted by sunlight, not necessarily their ability to see re physical actions determined by dice rolls.  They also may get more powers than what is listed at different times.  

That's right.  I don't know stuff from before August 2K.  Besides 5e, I'm only working with 3e, 3.5, pathfinder1, and now a bit of late issued AD&D my friend has from the mid to late 90's.  I don't know who else might have been playing drow and when, all I know is they weren't an option in the stuff I had access to.  Likely because in like every games but one, the rule was PC's can't be evil; and yes a lot of DM's at the time did then also say "and X are always evil." so they can't be a PC. 

I agree it's a good idea to move away from that, and I never did that as a DM myslef, but even so I'm not going to change the lore, I'm only going to make exceptions to it. 

I don't know yet.  i'll find out.  Right now i've only really discussed Orcs and Drow.  I haven't poked into every nook and cranny yet of every creature.  Honestly though I've never felt short on Lore for the more common character types.    It always seems there is plenty of lore floating about, and in many cases, Dwarves more than any other, the Lore is similar enough to overlap with one eachother and not contradict.  But it's a new one on me for everyone to be so excited to play what in my day were basically meatbags you'd kill for loot. 

I don't know what was explained before I came into this thread.  I went into the last thread on page 1, and I don't think it was appreciated my responfing in one sitting to basically 10 pages of posts.  This time I started on page 16.  with the questions about Drow.  Eitherway, explaining something isn't going to make me argree with it.  Someone is explaining something from their perspective which I then answer from my perspective.

This is my first time since like 2009.  Exposition and contenxtual narration aren't my strong suits per se.  I mostly read the descriptions in the little grey boxes and help people with their statistical problems to optimize their builds.  I'm more of an analytical type.  

Quote from 13th_doomdrake >>

 .... I do not know what to say. 

What book(s) are these from?  

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >> 

WoTC has already made changes to stat blocks too; like removing attribute penalties etc.  I have been ignoring those changes and still using the attribute penalties that used to be in the stat blocks.  Likewise; according to the Lore, which trumps the statblocks as far as I am concerned.  Drow Magic is impacted by sunlight, not necessarily their ability to see re physical actions determined by dice rolls.  They also may get more powers than what is listed at different times.  

That's right.  I don't know stuff from before August 2K.  Besides 5e, I'm only working with 3e, 3.5, pathfinder1, and now a bit of late issued AD&D my friend has from the mid to late 90's. 

Erm. Feel like I'm kicking in an open door here, but any mechanical stuff not mentioned in the 5E rules doesn't exist in 5E. If you want to ignore some or all of those changes, that's fine°; but if it doesn't officially exist in 5E, there isn't going to be any 5E lore that explains those things. In 5E Drow magic isn't neutered by sunlight, so 5E isn't going to explain that. There's nothing to explain, as far as 5E is concerned. Again, you can bring any or all of those previous edition mechanics back - but then you will have to dig up the lore from those editions too, or make something up. It won't (and shouldn't) be in the pages of a current edition book.

° fine, but not necessarily advisable. Other players likely won't have a clue what you're going on about; if you're the DM you'll have to explain those things, because likely nobody else is going to go digging through past edition sources, and if you're not the DM you'll definitely want to run this stuff past the person in charge of running the campaign.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from 13th_doomdrake >>

 .... I do not know what to say. 

What book(s) are these from? 

 Nowhere!!   Its not in any Book or Errata thats ever been printed until this point in time - which is weird to say in a digital age but whatever.

It's just a blurb on the official Wizards of the Coast Dungeons & Dragons Website!!  https://dnd.wizards.com/story/legend-of-drizzt

I am laughing my ass off this shit is so funny and ridiculous.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>----

Also, no, the mechanics are slightly different.  5e only conveyes disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks.  It doesn't say that some of your magic literally stops working in sunlight.

So, are your problems with errata or the fact that 5e mechanics are slightly to significantly different from the mechanics of other editions?  The reasons for disadvantage vs. outright negation are mechanical and balance considerations.  I mean, remember way back when humans got nothing on the modifier front?  Never mind, prior posts in this thread make your grasp of AD&D suspect.  The races were worked, at least initially (and the Drow are among the intial player races in 5e) to have distinctions and balance.  To negate a Drow's powers completely is an over nerf.  The failure of lore die hards in these debates comes down to failing to realize pretty much every edition of the game had substantial lore contortions in way way or another ... so that the lore could better reflect the mechanical basis of the game.  

This discussion is about the impact of recent set of errata.  Your vanity to contend with the consensus has abandoned that focus so that now you're grousing about design elements of the game that have been in literal play since 5e came out.  That makes you insufferable impossible to satisfy within the actual parameters of this discussion because it's not this recent change that's affecting your satisfaction, but stuff put into play at the release of the game.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

So drow heroes aren't allowed to stand against the evil of the Spider Queen?

I'm actually about to start a campaign where I'm playing a drow.  We had Session Zero last night, it went very well.  My drow character is an Oath of the Watchers paladin, a lost daughter of the Umbragen people that stand vigil in the depths of Xen'drik against the daelkyr, their warped, aberrant minions, and any other twisted denizens of Khyber that dare to waggle their tentacles an inch too far out of their holes.

Imagine those are a whole bunch of words you're not familiar with...because Mistletoe is a drow of Eberron, not a drow of Faerun.  Mistletoe has never heard of Lolth before in her life, "Menzoberranzen" is a weird too-long word with no meaning, and Misty would be mortally offended at the idea that her people are one of the threats great heroes must stand against.  Her people are heroes - they're the thin red line that holds the world-ending horrors of Khyber at bay so the sun-drowned nitwits in the lands above can waste a hundred years of their time on dumb shit like a war of succession.  But no one on Khorvaire has heard of the Umbragen save those people who've personally met Misty, and they never would have if not for a mission gone horribly pear-shaped and a few weeks of maddened wanderings through the outermost tunnels of the Deepest Hive.

That whole "Lolth corrupted all the drow cities and great heroes have to stand against them" thing?  It's less than useless for Misty, and any other drow from Eberron.  It actively confuses the issue, detracts from and contradicts the proper Eberron lore for the drow.

So why is it in the PHB?  Why is it in the neutral, core book the settings books are supposed to build on, instead of shoveled into the Faerun setting book Wizards is too something-or-other to write?

 Drow heroes are included in the wider category of great heroes; but as written it struck me more as implying that there would by default be an appropriate proportion of Drow heroes present.  Given I favor Drow hereos being of Mithral/Adamantine raritly in the face of Drow Villains, I'd rather the Party Drow be the Drow hero in question, and maybe a friend or two of theirs that they have me roll up as part of their backstory to happen upon over the course of the adventure or campaign.

Good good.  Sounds like an interesting character.  A bunch of those aren't words I'm familiar with.  All of that is fine, but it means either that I am not the DM of that game (obviously) given that I am not familiar with Xen'dirk, or very much of Eberron at all really and know none of it's lore nor own any of its published materials; or if there's a game like that where I am the DM, it is because someone has provided me with all of that and persuaded me somehow to run a campaign there for them.  

Hency Misty is a great hero standing against whatever she is standing against, and not standing against the cult of Lolth

Fair enough.  I believe either one of these should be true:

1 WotC should list little blurbs about the subtypes for EVERY realm that they officially own in the PHB with a -for more information see page # of the X Campaign Setting Sourcebook.

2. WotC should not list ANY campaign specific subtypes at all in the PHB and just stick to the basic descriptions of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, etc.

Because I favor simplicity, I favor choice two over choice 1, but I presume choice one will help with additional sales, so will probably expect that to be favored.  In choice one, it is clarified that there is specific lore per world and that PHB and MM is not the lore source for the entire multiverse, and it direcs you towards the source of additional lore for your favored worlds.  In choice two, no one has to argue about drow et al, because they are not a basic option and therefore will not appear as a playable choice until you get the appropriate campaign setting sourcebook, and can then make Drow as per that worlds version of Drow.  

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Fair enough.  I believe either one of these should be true:

1 WotC should list little blurbs about the subtypes for EVERY realm that they officially own in the PHB with a -for more information see page # of the X Campaign Setting Sourcebook.

2. WotC should not list ANY campaign specific subtypes at all in the PHB and just stick to the basic descriptions of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, etc.

 

Isn't number two already the way it is? There are small bits of narrative flavor chunks here and there but the general race descriptions are the neutral, non-specific ones. 

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >> 

2. WotC should not list ANY campaign specific subtypes at all in the PHB and just stick to the basic descriptions of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, etc.

Because I favor simplicity, I favor choice two over choice 1, but I presume choice one will help with additional sales, so will probably expect that to be favored.  In choice one, it is clarified that there is specific lore per world and that PHB and MM is not the lore source for the entire multiverse, and it direcs you towards the source of additional lore for your favored worlds.  In choice two, no one has to argue about drow et al, because they are not a basic option and therefore will not appear as a playable choice until you get the appropriate campaign setting sourcebook, and can then make Drow as per that worlds version of Drow.  

Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks. 

 

 Isn't number two already the way it is? There are small bits of narrative flavor chunks here and there but the general race descriptions are the neutral, non-specific ones. 

 

 

Somewhat; the PhB does include subtypes.  Re elves for example the choices are High Elf, Wood Elf, and Dark elf.  They were using the Feurun depictions which is why the move torards neutrality was so off putting; at first glance it seems they were applying this to faerun.  My DDB generator also includes Eladrin, but I presume I unlocked that with a purchase from another book.  ... or is it part of the new erata??  Anyway, some of these subtypes are common across more than one world.  OTOH, I know Faerun has more subtypes; and overall, D&D has like a dozen subtypes of elves.  So i'd go with either just 1 average description of ELF for Basic PHB; or I'd include a list of all the subtypes, which ones are on which worlds, and where you can find their details since it's perhaps impractical to fully detail each one for each world in one book.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

 

 Isn't number two already the way it is? There are small bits of narrative flavor chunks here and there but the general race descriptions are the neutral, non-specific ones. 

 

 

Somewhat; the PhB does include subtypes.  Re elves for example the choices are High Elf, Wood Elf, and Dark elf.  They were using the Feurun depictions which is why the move torards neutrality was so off putting; at first glance it seems they were applying this to faerun.  My DDB generator also includes Eladrin, but I presume I unlocked that with a purchase from another book.  ... or is it part of the new erata??  Anyway, some of these subtypes are common across more than one world.  OTOH, I know Faerun has more subtypes; and overall, D&D has like a dozen subtypes of elves.  So i'd go with either just 1 average description of ELF for Basic PHB; or I'd include a list of all the subtypes, which ones are on which worlds, and where you can find their details since it's perhaps impractical to fully detail each one for each world in one book.

WotC couldn't future-proof the PHB to allow for this: they can't exactly put in titles of and references to books that haven't been published yet. 

In 5E Drow magic isn't neutered by sunlight, so 5E isn't going to explain that. There's nothing to explain, as far as 5E is concerned. Again, you can bring any or all of those previous edition mechanics back - but then you will have to dig up the lore from those editions too, or make something up. It won't (and shouldn't) be in the pages of a current edition book.

 

 Fair enough; but some such changes I'm hoping might be reconsidered in 5.5. relative to effects on combat strategies such changes have brought; let alone that they had to retcon old lore in order to allow them.

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >> 

2. WotC should not list ANY campaign specific subtypes at all in the PHB and just stick to the basic descriptions of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, etc.

Because I favor simplicity, I favor choice two over choice 1, but I presume choice one will help with additional sales, so will probably expect that to be favored.  In choice one, it is clarified that there is specific lore per world and that PHB and MM is not the lore source for the entire multiverse, and it direcs you towards the source of additional lore for your favored worlds.  In choice two, no one has to argue about drow et al, because they are not a basic option and therefore will not appear as a playable choice until you get the appropriate campaign setting sourcebook, and can then make Drow as per that worlds version of Drow.  

Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks. 

 The reason that the PHB lists Forgotten Realms lore is due to Forgotten Realms are the default campaign world and is included as flavor text. The same way that if your playing say Traveller your game is assumed to be in the Third Imperium even though back when Traveller was released the game was setting neutral and after release they added the Third Imperium.

Quote from Jacqsynn >>

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >> 

2. WotC should not list ANY campaign specific subtypes at all in the PHB and just stick to the basic descriptions of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, etc.

Because I favor simplicity, I favor choice two over choice 1, but I presume choice one will help with additional sales, so will probably expect that to be favored.  In choice one, it is clarified that there is specific lore per world and that PHB and MM is not the lore source for the entire multiverse, and it direcs you towards the source of additional lore for your favored worlds.  In choice two, no one has to argue about drow et al, because they are not a basic option and therefore will not appear as a playable choice until you get the appropriate campaign setting sourcebook, and can then make Drow as per that worlds version of Drow.  

Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks. 

 The reason that the PHB lists Forgotten Realms lore is due to Forgotten Realms are the default campaign world and is included as flavor text. The same way that if your playing say Traveller your game is assumed to be in the Third Imperium even though back when Traveller was released the game was setting neutral and after release they added the Third Imperium.

 Which they are moving away from Forgotten Realms as the default setting towards a "Multiverse", thus the errata.  I am still not sure how people are still not getting this after 18 pages.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>----

Also, no, the mechanics are slightly different.  5e only conveyes disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks.  It doesn't say that some of your magic literally stops working in sunlight.

 

So, are your problems with errata or the fact that 5e mechanics are slightly to significantly different from the mechanics of other editions?  The reasons for disadvantage vs. outright negation are mechanical and balance considerations.  I mean, remember way back when humans got nothing on the modifier front?  Never mind, prior posts in this thread make your grasp of AD&D suspect.  The races were worked, at least initially (and the Drow are among the intial player races in 5e) to have distinctions and balance.  To negate a Drow's powers completely is an over nerf.  The failure of lore die hards in these debates comes down to failing to realize pretty much every edition of the game had substantial lore contortions in way way or another ... so that the lore could better reflect the mechanical basis of the game.  

This discussion is about the impact of recent set of errata.  Your vanity to contend with the consensus has abandoned that focus so that now you're grousing about design elements of the game that have been in literal play since 5e came out.  That makes you insufferable impossible to satisfy within the actual parameters of this discussion because it's not this recent change that's affecting your satisfaction, but stuff put into play at the release of the game.

 I can't really tell which is which sometimes i think.  Again I'm sort of back to the hobbey only recently -just this year, after being gone for like 12 years.  So it's all a bit different compared to all of my old stuff.  Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time.  I'm 3E+.  I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from.  Perhaps, but I think mechanics should follow Lore, not vice versa.  Again, it's easy to 'cure' a PC drow of most of their light sensitivity issues, so they can be a surface adventurer.  They didn't necessarily need to change things for those Drow who mostly stay in the underdark and only come to the surface at night to raid.

 

WotC couldn't future-proof the PHB to allow for this: they can't exactly put in titles of and references to books that haven't been published yet. 

 

 They can do it now though as part of the eratta.  There are lots of books they can reference in a 5.5 PHB.  The digital one here can be updated over time to include references to subsequently published campaign setting sourcebooks.  

 

Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks. 

 

 Drow are Elves, a subtype of Elves; as are Woodelves. I don't really know what Eladrin are and will have to read about them.  Stout halflings are subtype of Halflings.  Half-Orcs are their own thing though - I don't know if they come in multiple subtypes or not.  Unless WoTC is changing things so that Drow do count as their own race in the way half-Orcs do; then at the end of the day, they are still Elves.  

Also, not all Dark elves are necessarily Drow, are they?  I think I rember the Dark Elves in Kryn are actually Sylvan Elves and the title is just one assigned to them when they get banished from that society.  I can't remember if there were others, but it's possibe the term 'Drow', really could refer specifically to Lolths version and the wider catagory of Dark Elf would cover some of these you are telling me about that are in other worlds.  Are they specifically reffered to there as 'Drow' or as Dark Elves? 

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

 

WotC couldn't future-proof the PHB to allow for this: they can't exactly put in titles of and references to books that haven't been published yet. 

 

 They can do it now though as part of the eratta.  There are lots of books they can reference in a 5.5 PHB.  The digital one here can be updated over time to include references to subsequently published campaign setting sourcebooks.  

And they still wouldn't be able to reference ones that haven't come out yet, so they'd perpetually be releasing PHB versions they know will become outdated. Moreover, what would really be the point? They wouldn't be putting any extra info in the PHB, other than "this race exists in setting X, Y and Z, you should look up their specific lore in books A, B and C respectively". That really doesn't add any value, all it looks like is a cheap sales pitch to get people to buy extra books. The basic, setting-agnostic stuff is what people would buy the PHB for (among other things) so that's all that needs to be in there.