Oh wow! Never heard about the Tasha's thing, but I absolutely agree with your view of the new book. There was an implicit promise that was far from delivered on. I personally was expecting there to be a bunch of new races that hadn't been in any books before.
No, they were up front that this was not going to contain any new races. But they did imply that they were actually to write new lore in this book, which they most assuredly did not do.
I never got the impression that they were going to put new lore in this book. It was advertised as setting agnostic, which means they can't put lore in to the book for every setting that exists and will exist. You want lore you have to look to the settings.
TL;DR: My personal opinion of Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse is that it is a fine enough supplement with regards to the mechanical upgrades made to the species that it contains, especially those that were sorely in need of them. However, the lack of new information about any of the presented species is disheartening and makes me genuinely annoyed. This is especially true in cases such as Goblinoids where Wizards of the Coast is attempting to soften the portrayal of certain species and make it more possible for them to not be seen as monsters since there is a lack of actual "fabric" to help connect these new interpretations with previous ones and justify their existence in lore. With regards to changes in the way the monsters contained in this book are presented, my opinion is very underdeveloped as I have not read through the 250+ statblocks in the book and have no intention of doing so any time soon.
Does anybody agree with me even a little bit on any of this, or am I just blowing steam over nothing? I'm genuinely curious and wouldn't be making this post if I wasn't. And if you don't agree with me, feel free to tell me why. I'm happy to discuss viewpoints on this topic, especially since Wizards of the Coast now owns D&D Beyond and is likely able to see the things we post on the forums more easily.
I feel that the lack of specific lore was made known months ago and the reason is that not all worlds share the lore you may be familiar with. This is meant to be a book that can be used with any official universe. It also tells me that there is more lore on the horizon that you will be able to sink your teeth into. My real concerns in this book are not a lack of lore but some questionable organizational decisions.
TL;DR: My personal opinion of Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse is that it is a fine enough supplement with regards to the mechanical upgrades made to the species that it contains, especially those that were sorely in need of them. However, the lack of new information about any of the presented species is disheartening and makes me genuinely annoyed. This is especially true in cases such as Goblinoids where Wizards of the Coast is attempting to soften the portrayal of certain species and make it more possible for them to not be seen as monsters since there is a lack of actual "fabric" to help connect these new interpretations with previous ones and justify their existence in lore. With regards to changes in the way the monsters contained in this book are presented, my opinion is very underdeveloped as I have not read through the 250+ statblocks in the book and have no intention of doing so any time soon.
Does anybody agree with me even a little bit on any of this, or am I just blowing steam over nothing? I'm genuinely curious and wouldn't be making this post if I wasn't. And if you don't agree with me, feel free to tell me why. I'm happy to discuss viewpoints on this topic, especially since Wizards of the Coast now owns D&D Beyond and is likely able to see the things we post on the forums more easily.
I feel that the lack of specific lore was made known months ago and the reason is that not all worlds share the lore you may be familiar with. This is meant to be a book that can be used with any official universe. It also tells me that there is more lore on the horizon that you will be able to sink your teeth into. My real concerns in this book are not a lack of lore but some questionable organizational decisions.
That's a fair way of looking at things. And I truly hope that that is how it will be. However, with Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes being removed from D&D Beyond, it means that people who primarily use this platform won't have access to the information within those books if they don't already own them.
Additionally, the more I read in detail about the character options, the more weirded out I get. For one, they removed immunity to magical sleep from all instances of Fey Ancestry in the character options in the book, however it is still there in statblocks that have the feature such as the Drow Matron Mother and Draegloth. Also, species with the Magic Resistance trait in this book, such as Satyrs and Yuan-ti, only have advantage on saves against spells, rather than against spells and magical effects like monsters in this book have such as the four versions of Eladrin and the Demon Prince Juiblex.
The more I read, the more genuinely upset I get by this book. I know that I'm overreacting, but I'm having trouble comprehending that the company that put out something as amazing as Mythic Odysseys of Theros is also behind this mess. The closer I look, the more I realize that this book's content is, overall, very low quality, especially considering the major sorting issues and internal inconsistencies on things like what Fey Ancestry is supposed to do. Not to mention the plethora of reused artwork and dumbed down info about the monsters. I've seen better content than this book for free on Reddit.
I genuinely like most of the racical changes, and if it weren't for the presence of those I would be attempting to get a refund of my purchase the moment I wake up tomorrow morning. And even with those options, I am still sorely tempted to do it anyway.
Oh wow! Never heard about the Tasha's thing, but I absolutely agree with your view of the new book. There was an implicit promise that was far from delivered on. I personally was expecting there to be a bunch of new races that hadn't been in any books before.
No, they were up front that this was not going to contain any new races. But they did imply that they were actually to write new lore in this book, which they most assuredly did not do.
I never got the impression that they were going to put new lore in this book. It was advertised as setting agnostic, which means they can't put lore in to the book for every setting that exists and will exist. You want lore you have to look to the settings.
You're right, it was advertised as setting agnostic. But it being setting agnostic doesn't mean that they couldn't have written lore anyway. They could have presented what is most common of a species throughout the multiverse and provided examples of variations therein. In fact, some of the options in here, such as the options from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, already had setting agnostic lore because that sourcebook was extremely setting agnostic, presenting what is most common and detailing specific instances of variation across the multiverse where they appear. This includes the massive amount of lore for elves, which also acknowledges how Corellon Larethian and Lolth don't exist in Krynn and how Dark Elves in that setting are simply elves who have been outcast from elven society and do not bear the traits of dark elves in other settings.
It is far from impossible to write setting agnostic lore. It may take effort and be time consuming, but it is not impossible.
Additionally, the more I read in detail about the character options, the more weirded out I get. For one, they removed immunity to magical sleep from all instances of Fey Ancestry in the character options in the book, however it is still there in statblocks that have the feature such as the Drow Matron Mother and Draegloth. Also, species with the Magic Resistance trait in this book, such as Satyrs and Yuan-ti, only have advantage on saves against spells, rather than against spells and magical effects like monsters in this book have such as the four versions of Eladrin and the Demon Prince Juiblex.
The immunity to magical sleep was moved to the Trance feature for elven player races - it honestly makes more sense there, than with resistance to charm.
Additionally, the more I read in detail about the character options, the more weirded out I get. For one, they removed immunity to magical sleep from all instances of Fey Ancestry in the character options in the book, however it is still there in statblocks that have the feature such as the Drow Matron Mother and Draegloth. Also, species with the Magic Resistance trait in this book, such as Satyrs and Yuan-ti, only have advantage on saves against spells, rather than against spells and magical effects like monsters in this book have such as the four versions of Eladrin and the Demon Prince Juiblex.
The immunity to magical sleep was moved to the Trance feature for elven player races - it honestly makes more sense there, than with resistance to charm.
Y'know, that's a fair enough change considering Goblinoids haven't historically had much resistance to sleep effects whereas elves have. However, that still doesn't totally excuse it being under the Fey Ancestry trait on monster statblocks. As I, in my sleepy ignorance, have clearly demonstrated, it can cause a bit of confusion.
I like it, I like how they have balanced the playable races much more evenly. Bringing more powerful choices down (like the Yuan-ti), while elevating weaker choices like the Genasi. I’m also a fan of the change to Hobgoblins. It’s actually made them more true to form, and lines them up well with their actual mythic origins. In Celtic myth for example Hobgoblins were small, hairy little beings who, like their close relatives the Brownies, were often found within human dwellings, doing odd jobs around the house like dusting and ironing while the family sleeps. Often, the only compensation necessary in return for these is food.
While brownies are more peaceful creatures, hobgoblins are more fond of practical jokes. They also seem to be able to shapeshift, as seen in one of Puck's monologues in A Midsummer Night's Dream
I don't remember buying this, but it seems I own this book. I skimmed it. For the players races as mentioned initially they just seem less flavored. I guess they put that work on the dm.
Then I go to monsters and so many of the big ones deal a lot of force as the catchall for what was magic damage.. sucks for barbarians. I knew it was coming and I can't see myself ever using the new worse build stat blocks. Daily spells instead of slots feels like more to track and not less since its every individual spell.
Overall the book just feels like a poorly organised rush to rewrite everything as a number block with less care in making the rewrites interesting. It could of put time into more setting neutral biology or anything so character races aren't piles of numbers. I guess they didn't have the time.
My sensations are that this book is esentially a playtest book for 5.5e. Which is fine as it has a lot of content.
Balance wise, each of the races has potential, but it is visible that some of the earlier rules from the phb (the need for ASIs, f.e.) make the rules a bit messy in some aspects.
Lorewise is extremely lacking, it is a pure mechanical book. Also, almost all of the art is recicled.
The dark side of all of this is that the extensive lore from volo's and mordenkainen's will be lost for new players, as well as tiefling variants.
I don't remember buying this, but it seems I own this book. I skimmed it. For the players races as mentioned initially they just seem less flavored. I guess they put that work on the dm.
Then I go to monsters and so many of the big ones deal a lot of force as the catchall for what was magic damage.. sucks for barbarians. I knew it was coming and I can't see myself ever using the new worse build star blocks. Daily spells instead of slots feels like more to track and not less since its every individual spell.
Overall the book just feels like a poorly organised rush to rewrite everything as a number block with less care in making the rewrites interesting. It could of put time into more setting neutral biology or anything so character races aren't piles of numbers with. I guess they didn't have the time.
Yeah, I've been noticing the force damage thing too as I've been reading through. It's really weird that they're doing that when the Magic Weapon's trait already exists. It's not like there are any reliable ways to have resistance to magical weapon damage.
And I agree that this book needed more time. Especially since a lot of what is here for monster descriptions is copy pasted or paraphrased from other books. In all honesty, it isn't bad; as much as my melodramatic side wants to say it is. It's just rushed. But honestly... in the case of a product that you're selling, it's not always better to have something than nothing. This needed another 3-6 months in the oven easy.
My sensations are that this book is esentially a playtest book for 5.5e. Which is fine as it has a lot of content.
Balance wise, each of the races has potential, but it is visible that some of the earlier rules from the phb (the need for ASIs, f.e.) make the rules a bit messy in some aspects.
Lorewise is extremely lacking, it is a pure mechanical book. Also, almost all of the art is recicled.
The dark side of all of this is that the extensive lore from volo's and mordenkainen's will be lost for new players, as well as tiefling variants.
Okay, if this is playtest then Wizards should have told us that like they did with Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron. And yeah, each race has potential, but I don't think that rules like ASI bog things down at all. The race options are largely fine as is. It's just that a few of them do really weird things that make absolutely no sense like rolling the subraces of Aasimar and Shifter into options of a single class feature. For Shifters, it made a bit of sense since the only thing that subrace particularly would affect is the Shifting effect. In the case of Aasimar though, it impacts the lore implications of you being an aasimar. This book doesn't even go over the concepts of Angellic Guides or Fallen Aasimar.
And frankly, a D&D book without lore feels incomplete. It feels like a vital part of what the book should be is missing, and that's an issue I've been having with race options for a little while now. Very little actual info is given about individual races. I could excuse it in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons because those were variants of an existing race with lore already in the PHB. I was miffed with Strixhaven and Wild Beyond the Witchlight for giving hardly anything about the brand new races that they contained (and I'm a bit annoyed that the Owlin weren't in this book but that's not the point), but gave them a pass because they were adventures. And now this comes out and starts making me feel really worried about the direction that WotC might be starting to take with D&D.
Not everybody is a lore writing god like Matt Mercer. We can't all spend years and years creating a lovingly crafted homebrew setting with deeply thought out faction relationships and complex and unique lore for each and every race while making absolute bank while doing it. We sure as heck can't possibly be expected to do the job of WotC and create the lore for races they made for settings that belong to them like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, at least in the case of the Fairies and Harengon. Seriously, what's the deal with those two? Where do they belong anywhere in the official D&D settings? What is the basic philosophy of their societies? I'm pretty sure that that info isn't out there. If it is, then please correct me.
I am truly disappointed by the book. Volo's and the first Mordenkainen's book are marked as deprecated now. It seems that the intention was to make every race "equal" and "good". This information goes against everything we have seen from the creatures inhibiting Forgotten Realms. TBH it lookes like a washed out bullshit.
This information goes against everything we have seen from the creatures inhibiting Forgotten Realms. TBH it lookes like a washed out bullshit.
To be fair the content of this book is not supposed to have any relation to forgotten realms or any setting. It's supposed to represent every setting as setting neutral as possible.
I feel it goes too far to be a bunch of set blocks of abities with no flavor, but it's not wrong for it to disagree with a setting that it wasn't built for.
I don't mind the new player race stuff or the "typically" alignment stuff. I hate that they're taking away lore stuff from the monsters. They way their organized too of a ******* mess. New DMs coming into the game & want to expaned into things like Demons & Devil. No more lore on the Blood War, well too bad. No more lore on the divide between Elves & Drow, well too bad. The crime here is making it harder for people accessing lore and this dimishises the game. I hope WotC fixes these lore gasp asap.
I don't mind the new player race stuff or the "typically" alignment stuff. I hate that they're taking away lore stuff from the monsters. They way their organized too of a ******* mess. New DMs coming into the game & want to expaned into things like Demons & Devil. No more lore on the Blood War, well too bad. No more lore on the divide between Elves & Drow, well too bad. The crime here is making it harder for people accessing lore and this dimishises the game. I hope WotC fixes these lore gasp asap.
And the things that's really grating my cheese the more I think about it is that it's not giving anyone more options - it's just forcing people into a funnel. If WotC were genuine about improving options, they would have left Volo's and Tome of Foes available for new DDB members. Instead, they've locked them out of a bunch of stuff. Sure, people can still buy the hard-copy books, but if they want to use any of it in DDB, they have to recreate it in homebrew.
This makes me genuinely concerned with the future of homebrew in DDB; if WoTC are so determined to "remove" stuff that's now considered bad-wrong-fun, how long until they nerf the homebrewing ability of DDB? How long until the announcement that existing homebrew stuff will remain, but there'll be extensive limitations on new homebrew?
What do you think is the best way to show WotC the displeasure the playerbase at large seems to have with this book and the way its implementation was forced onto DDB? Is there a feedback form, contact e-mail, poll, anything anywhere that we know WotC will take seriously? Because if this is the direction the development of further 5e/5.5e content is going to go, I'm not sure if I want to keep buying these books, DDB version or not.
It baffles me that they didn't use Unearthed Arcana to gauge public opinion on certain races before making the changes. Fury of the Small being nerfed so badly for example would have never happened had any players had any input in the process. I understand wanting to make things setting-agnostic, but some of the changes have absolutely nothing to do with that.
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
I don't mind the new player race stuff or the "typically" alignment stuff. I hate that they're taking away lore stuff from the monsters. They way their organized too of a ****ing mess. New DMs coming into the game & want to expaned into things like Demons & Devil. No more lore on the Blood War, well too bad. No more lore on the divide between Elves & Drow, well too bad. The crime here is making it harder for people accessing lore and this dimishises the game. I hope WotC fixes these lore gasp asap.
And the things that's really grating my cheese the more I think about it is that it's not giving anyone more options - it's just forcing people into a funnel. If WotC were genuine about improving options, they would have left Volo's and Tome of Foes available for new DDB members. Instead, they've locked them out of a bunch of stuff. Sure, people can still buy the hard-copy books, but if they want to use any of it in DDB, they have to recreate it in homebrew.
This makes me genuinely concerned with the future of homebrew in DDB; if WoTC are so determined to "remove" stuff that's now considered bad-wrong-fun, how long until they nerf the homebrewing ability of DDB? How long until the announcement that existing homebrew stuff will remain, but there'll be extensive limitations on new homebrew?
What do you think is the best way to show WotC the displeasure the playerbase at large seems to have with this book and the way its implementation was forced onto DDB? Is there a feedback form, contact e-mail, poll, anything anywhere that we know WotC will take seriously? Because if this is the direction the development of further 5e/5.5e content is going to go, I'm not sure if I want to keep buying these books, DDB version or not.
It baffles me that they didn't use Unearthed Arcana to gauge public opinion on certain races before making the changes. Fury of the Small being nerfed so badly for example would have never happened had any players had any input in the process. I understand wanting to make things setting-agnostic, but some of the changes have absolutely nothing to do with that.
As far as I can tell, WotC uses UA purely to claim they looked at player feedback before making the nerfs they wanted to make anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think I might just make a poll and then if it does well, see if I can link it to someone who might actually be able to make a difference in this. I know it's a long shot, but hey, always give it a try, right?
If you'd like me to tag you in the poll, let me know!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I never got the impression that they were going to put new lore in this book. It was advertised as setting agnostic, which means they can't put lore in to the book for every setting that exists and will exist. You want lore you have to look to the settings.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I feel that the lack of specific lore was made known months ago and the reason is that not all worlds share the lore you may be familiar with. This is meant to be a book that can be used with any official universe. It also tells me that there is more lore on the horizon that you will be able to sink your teeth into. My real concerns in this book are not a lack of lore but some questionable organizational decisions.
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
That's a fair way of looking at things. And I truly hope that that is how it will be. However, with Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes being removed from D&D Beyond, it means that people who primarily use this platform won't have access to the information within those books if they don't already own them.
Additionally, the more I read in detail about the character options, the more weirded out I get. For one, they removed immunity to magical sleep from all instances of Fey Ancestry in the character options in the book, however it is still there in statblocks that have the feature such as the Drow Matron Mother and Draegloth. Also, species with the Magic Resistance trait in this book, such as Satyrs and Yuan-ti, only have advantage on saves against spells, rather than against spells and magical effects like monsters in this book have such as the four versions of Eladrin and the Demon Prince Juiblex.
The more I read, the more genuinely upset I get by this book. I know that I'm overreacting, but I'm having trouble comprehending that the company that put out something as amazing as Mythic Odysseys of Theros is also behind this mess. The closer I look, the more I realize that this book's content is, overall, very low quality, especially considering the major sorting issues and internal inconsistencies on things like what Fey Ancestry is supposed to do. Not to mention the plethora of reused artwork and dumbed down info about the monsters. I've seen better content than this book for free on Reddit.
I genuinely like most of the racical changes, and if it weren't for the presence of those I would be attempting to get a refund of my purchase the moment I wake up tomorrow morning. And even with those options, I am still sorely tempted to do it anyway.
I.... I need to go to sleep.
You're right, it was advertised as setting agnostic. But it being setting agnostic doesn't mean that they couldn't have written lore anyway. They could have presented what is most common of a species throughout the multiverse and provided examples of variations therein. In fact, some of the options in here, such as the options from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, already had setting agnostic lore because that sourcebook was extremely setting agnostic, presenting what is most common and detailing specific instances of variation across the multiverse where they appear. This includes the massive amount of lore for elves, which also acknowledges how Corellon Larethian and Lolth don't exist in Krynn and how Dark Elves in that setting are simply elves who have been outcast from elven society and do not bear the traits of dark elves in other settings.
It is far from impossible to write setting agnostic lore. It may take effort and be time consuming, but it is not impossible.
The immunity to magical sleep was moved to the Trance feature for elven player races - it honestly makes more sense there, than with resistance to charm.
Y'know, that's a fair enough change considering Goblinoids haven't historically had much resistance to sleep effects whereas elves have. However, that still doesn't totally excuse it being under the Fey Ancestry trait on monster statblocks. As I, in my sleepy ignorance, have clearly demonstrated, it can cause a bit of confusion.
I like it, I like how they have balanced the playable races much more evenly. Bringing more powerful choices down (like the Yuan-ti), while elevating weaker choices like the Genasi. I’m also a fan of the change to Hobgoblins. It’s actually made them more true to form, and lines them up well with their actual mythic origins. In Celtic myth for example Hobgoblins were small, hairy little beings who, like their close relatives the Brownies, were often found within human dwellings, doing odd jobs around the house like dusting and ironing while the family sleeps. Often, the only compensation necessary in return for these is food.
While brownies are more peaceful creatures, hobgoblins are more fond of practical jokes. They also seem to be able to shapeshift, as seen in one of Puck's monologues in A Midsummer Night's Dream
I don't remember buying this, but it seems I own this book. I skimmed it. For the players races as mentioned initially they just seem less flavored. I guess they put that work on the dm.
Then I go to monsters and so many of the big ones deal a lot of force as the catchall for what was magic damage.. sucks for barbarians. I knew it was coming and I can't see myself ever using the new worse build stat blocks. Daily spells instead of slots feels like more to track and not less since its every individual spell.
Overall the book just feels like a poorly organised rush to rewrite everything as a number block with less care in making the rewrites interesting. It could of put time into more setting neutral biology or anything so character races aren't piles of numbers. I guess they didn't have the time.
My sensations are that this book is esentially a playtest book for 5.5e. Which is fine as it has a lot of content.
Balance wise, each of the races has potential, but it is visible that some of the earlier rules from the phb (the need for ASIs, f.e.) make the rules a bit messy in some aspects.
Lorewise is extremely lacking, it is a pure mechanical book. Also, almost all of the art is recicled.
The dark side of all of this is that the extensive lore from volo's and mordenkainen's will be lost for new players, as well as tiefling variants.
Yeah, I've been noticing the force damage thing too as I've been reading through. It's really weird that they're doing that when the Magic Weapon's trait already exists. It's not like there are any reliable ways to have resistance to magical weapon damage.
And I agree that this book needed more time. Especially since a lot of what is here for monster descriptions is copy pasted or paraphrased from other books. In all honesty, it isn't bad; as much as my melodramatic side wants to say it is. It's just rushed. But honestly... in the case of a product that you're selling, it's not always better to have something than nothing. This needed another 3-6 months in the oven easy.
Okay, if this is playtest then Wizards should have told us that like they did with Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron. And yeah, each race has potential, but I don't think that rules like ASI bog things down at all. The race options are largely fine as is. It's just that a few of them do really weird things that make absolutely no sense like rolling the subraces of Aasimar and Shifter into options of a single class feature. For Shifters, it made a bit of sense since the only thing that subrace particularly would affect is the Shifting effect. In the case of Aasimar though, it impacts the lore implications of you being an aasimar. This book doesn't even go over the concepts of Angellic Guides or Fallen Aasimar.
And frankly, a D&D book without lore feels incomplete. It feels like a vital part of what the book should be is missing, and that's an issue I've been having with race options for a little while now. Very little actual info is given about individual races. I could excuse it in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons because those were variants of an existing race with lore already in the PHB. I was miffed with Strixhaven and Wild Beyond the Witchlight for giving hardly anything about the brand new races that they contained (and I'm a bit annoyed that the Owlin weren't in this book but that's not the point), but gave them a pass because they were adventures. And now this comes out and starts making me feel really worried about the direction that WotC might be starting to take with D&D.
Not everybody is a lore writing god like Matt Mercer. We can't all spend years and years creating a lovingly crafted homebrew setting with deeply thought out faction relationships and complex and unique lore for each and every race while making absolute bank while doing it. We sure as heck can't possibly be expected to do the job of WotC and create the lore for races they made for settings that belong to them like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, at least in the case of the Fairies and Harengon. Seriously, what's the deal with those two? Where do they belong anywhere in the official D&D settings? What is the basic philosophy of their societies? I'm pretty sure that that info isn't out there. If it is, then please correct me.
I am truly disappointed by the book. Volo's and the first Mordenkainen's book are marked as deprecated now.
It seems that the intention was to make every race "equal" and "good". This information goes against everything we have seen from the creatures inhibiting Forgotten Realms. TBH it lookes like a washed out bullshit.
To be fair the content of this book is not supposed to have any relation to forgotten realms or any setting. It's supposed to represent every setting as setting neutral as possible.
I feel it goes too far to be a bunch of set blocks of abities with no flavor, but it's not wrong for it to disagree with a setting that it wasn't built for.
I don't mind the new player race stuff or the "typically" alignment stuff. I hate that they're taking away lore stuff from the monsters. They way their organized too of a ******* mess. New DMs coming into the game & want to expaned into things like Demons & Devil. No more lore on the Blood War, well too bad. No more lore on the divide between Elves & Drow, well too bad. The crime here is making it harder for people accessing lore and this dimishises the game. I hope WotC fixes these lore gasp asap.
And the things that's really grating my cheese the more I think about it is that it's not giving anyone more options - it's just forcing people into a funnel. If WotC were genuine about improving options, they would have left Volo's and Tome of Foes available for new DDB members. Instead, they've locked them out of a bunch of stuff. Sure, people can still buy the hard-copy books, but if they want to use any of it in DDB, they have to recreate it in homebrew.
This makes me genuinely concerned with the future of homebrew in DDB; if WoTC are so determined to "remove" stuff that's now considered bad-wrong-fun, how long until they nerf the homebrewing ability of DDB? How long until the announcement that existing homebrew stuff will remain, but there'll be extensive limitations on new homebrew?
What do you think is the best way to show WotC the displeasure the playerbase at large seems to have with this book and the way its implementation was forced onto DDB? Is there a feedback form, contact e-mail, poll, anything anywhere that we know WotC will take seriously? Because if this is the direction the development of further 5e/5.5e content is going to go, I'm not sure if I want to keep buying these books, DDB version or not.
It baffles me that they didn't use Unearthed Arcana to gauge public opinion on certain races before making the changes. Fury of the Small being nerfed so badly for example would have never happened had any players had any input in the process. I understand wanting to make things setting-agnostic, but some of the changes have absolutely nothing to do with that.
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
I am just VERY sad, that we do not get new Art for every
recycledrace.I was t least hopeful to see new Genasi Art and a a set of Eladrin Season elves
A poll? Good idea!
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As far as I can tell, WotC uses UA purely to claim they looked at player feedback before making the nerfs they wanted to make anyway.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think I might just make a poll and then if it does well, see if I can link it to someone who might actually be able to make a difference in this. I know it's a long shot, but hey, always give it a try, right?
If you'd like me to tag you in the poll, let me know!
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.