Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
I don't think that response implies anything at all, considering there aren't any monsters from the SRD or the Monster Manual that are being included in Monsters of the Multiverse.
The player base really likes having options removed from them? Source?
You can say people like the option of having floating ASI, but who has said they like the idea of floating ASI being the sole option available to them?
edit: I'm just not going to allow not PHB races going forward. I don't really care about this "an orc shouldn't be more powerful than a halfling naturally". It's idiotic. How many people could win a contest of strength with an adult elephant? Very few. Why? Because they're so much larger than us. It's not because elephants spending all of their time doing strength training. Likewise, a goldfish can't become as smart as a stupid human being through extensive study. Even species that are similar to humans have less sophisticated brains, to the point where I don't think there is a single goldfish that is smarter than a human being. This whole idea that orcs shouldn't be naturally stronger and dumber than human beings is just dogmatic nonsense.
Huh ... perhaps I did misinterpret that, you're right.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The question claims that there are, though the questioner could easily have been wrong.
He's probably correct about the power curve & those left behind. It will be technically compatible with prior books (same system), but due to that power boost not really. Tortles are in fact in Wildemount, so the WotC crew doesn't know what is in thier own books. Taking "we don't want to limit the player's imagination, so we cut stuff out" to it's logical conclusion means that they will eventually sell us books of blank pages as sourcebooks. It's certainly a whole lot less work on thier part to just outright not do things that they used to (choosing ASIs, cultural traits, etc). I felt the same about the Guide to Ravenloft, where 39 Domains of Dread was really 17, plus a pile of filler from random fanfiction sites called "Other Domains of Dread". The WotC statement boils down to wanting to charge us again for content we've already paid for (gathering creatures & player races from the existing books), and provide less than they did the first time.
I hope they do a Hobgoblin / UA Fey Hobgoblin thing again, and keep MMM distinct from the current material both officially & on DDB. Else there will be parts of books that reference Cunning Artisan on Lizardpeople (to use his example), and players will reference MMM & scratch thier heads. "Cunning Artisan, what the heck that? Lizardpeople don't have a Cunning Artisan trait!"
.... since the goal is to let players build whatever character they want without unnecessary fixed roles or expectations, maybe in some upcoming release they'll recognize that many historical and fantasy Pantheons were tended to priests who dealt with all the gods. That way i can play a priest of the evening hearth who walks the line between life and death and choose the Twilight level 1 domain feature, the Peace cleric channel divinity, the Grave cleric level 6 ability, oh and maybe the Arcana level 17 ability 'cuz it'd be cool to have some wizard spells. These are adventurers remember! they shouldn't be pinned down by any formal roles! And a Bear Totem barbarian might really like the level 14 Zealot feature if he cares about Nature enough! :-p :-P
I'm fully in favor of flexible ASIs, though I think they should have updated human with something if they're going in this direction. IMO, the other racial features were always the more interesting part of races. Tieflings aren't getting trance, elves aren't gotten the half orc resilience thing etc. The ASIs, while certainly good and useful, were always to me flavor wise the most bland and least interesting, and I'm fully in support of allowing players to put those bonuses where they please.
My only real disappointment is I was hoping to see the multiverse UA races in this book. Looks like they won't be, I hope they weren't completely dropped and still make it into something eventually.
You jest, but players have been clamoring for this. I believe it's how Pathfinder works for the most part. People love complaining that they only make one decision for their build and it happens at level 1/2/3 depending on class.
Mechanical concept aside, divine domains aren't tied to single deities (although there are obviously restrictions) and clerics aren't prohibited from observing the tenets of multiple gods (though again some deities will have a problem with priests being too chummy with specific other deities - trying to serve both Eilistraee and Lolth isn't going to work). Flavour wise what you're saying is well within the rules as they are. Cherry picking abilities, not so much. One doesn't imply the other.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I does make me curious are they going to even out all ability score adjustments as +2/+1 or +1/+!/+1 for races with features and continue with the +1 to all on basic human?
On the mixing a matching of subclass features I really don't see that happening as they are still not completely uniform in the overall strength/weight of each feature (and to be honest they are kind of bad at that in general).
Probably the *best* way D&DB to handle this would be with toggles that let DMs pick between flexible or static ASIs for their campaigns and one for players during character creation.
It's pretty easy to get around ASIs manually on the character sheet. Not that offering extra customization wouldn't be nice, but I don't think this is the foremost issue for many players. Not having official static ASIs in the first place and arguably the other changes M³ will introduce to various races are the real concern. Of course, that's all WotC's purview, not DDB's.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Like Fantasyground is going to do it?
MMM: We want to make the races setting agnostic!
Also MMM: makes the goblinkin races have a fey background now
woopdi-doop
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Yeah... I'm confused.
I mean, I guess elves are still fey-based too, so in for a penny, in for a pound, but it seems weird to insist that the Feywild is a multiversal constant.
Fey, generally, are a multiversal constant.
The Feywild is not.
Fey exist in some form or another across all of D&D's current worlds, the same way dragons, oozes, fiends, and undead do. 'Fey' is a creature type. How creatures of that type came to exist in whatever world they're in is up to the world, but generally the existence of beings identifiable as 'fey' is not. And if, in a given world, the fey truly do not exist? Then fey creatures such as elves, goblinoids, and other such critters don't as well and they're excluded. Not every world needs to accomodate every species.
Please do not contact or message me.
Or you houserule it. Boom, elves are not fey. Done. Same if you want Kalashtar to be fey in origin, have Tieflings come from fey bloodlines instead of infernal ones or have Kenku have a little or a lot of fey in them. Make it so. /Picard voice
The whole setting agnostic move as some present it is a bit silly. Are they not going to have any kind of non-genetic (for lack of a better word) info at all? That seems dreadfully boring. But if they do, how is that not something that may differ from one setting to the next? I'm pretty sure there will be 'cultural' or 'flavour' parts in the writeups, just no references to specific settings, a nod to the whole multiverse being a big place and things being as malleable as the multiverse is big, and maybe some boilerplate text about things being more like guidelines than actual rules.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I always wonder why people question the reason for the existence of various Elves (just an example) in a campaign world but humans always get a pass. There is absolutely no reason for any real world creature to exist on any world other than Earth, but we just accept that Forgotten Realms, Eberron and everywhere else has humans, cats, dogs and all manner of creatures that shouldn't be there, but fret over Elves and Dwarves and where they do and don't fit in.
Goblins, Hobs, and Bugbears/Bugaboos from the folklore were always Fey. In fact, they were about as "fey" as you could get. (Changelings were too, so it also makes sense that they're fey in this book.)
And goblinoid identity in D&D hasn't really evolved that much in the past 50ish years beyond "Tolkien-ish always evil mooks that you can kill without feeling bad about it", so I like having more flavor on them, especially if it echoes the folklore more. (I've been told that 4e had something similar, but due to not having played that edition, I myself cannot confirm this. Can anyone that has played it/read the 4e books confirm this?)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There's references to goblins in the feywild, and that they had an ancient empire that extended into the feywild, but what I have access to doesn't particularly echo folklore goblins.