So, we all know by now that they've made some changes to the lore of certain races, and I'm wondering how people feel about them, what you'll use/disregard, what is exciting and what is irritating to you about what we know about this book, so far.
Warning, long post! Feel free to skim or skip!
Mechanics: I like nearly everything I've seen so far, mechanically. Even the stuff where I won't be using the lore, I'm stoked for the crunchy bits.
Dwarves: I like their thoughts on the impact of their origins on their culture, and I appreciate that Mearls explicitly said in a video that it IS cultural, not "genetic", and that a Duergar raised as a dwarf would just act and think like a dwarf, and vise versa. I despise racial alignment in sentient races.
OTOH, I feel like the story as told in the videos makes the dwarves into the bad guys of that story. Well, the Illithid are the real bad guys no matter what, but after that event, the Dwarves fanatically rejected their cousins because they let themselves get enslaved and corrupted, without ever giving them a chance to show that they still valued Dwarven values and wanted to serve Moradin and all that jazz. That is pretty gross fundamentalist fanaticism of a kind that makes it hard to sympathize with the Dwarves.
Also, from the video, it seems that Duergar didn't become slaving a-holes, or otherwise reject dwarven values or reject Moradin, until after the Dwarves callously rejected them, and "proved" to the Duergar that it was all a lie, etc. So, the Dwarves ultimately caused the Duergar to be anything worse just than a physically mutated magical dwarf subrace with some tragedy in their past, and a really good cautionary tale about not chasing the voice of greed. Instead, the Dwarves caused the Duergar to learn that Dwarven values are BS, none of it matters, their kin cared more about "purity" than about their own kin, and maybe we should just burn it all down, ya'll.
Elves: I like a lot of it, but I gotta say i strongly prefer the 4e Lolth story. The idea of taking the Seldarine and making all of them but Correlon be former Elves is weird, to me, as is the sudden decision to make Correlon an absent, indifferent, father, and all of it just makes the elven pantheon less interesting, to me. Also, why on earth does the book describe elves (in one of the recent previews) as "rarely frivilous", and talk about them like they're morose downers? That's...a different take, for sure, and not one that I think adds anything or keeps the basic "soul" of the race intact.
But I do like the Eladrin, for the most part. I like the idea that elves used to be beings of limitless form, who eventually came to be a specific form. It makes sense of the somewhat wild dimorphism in the race, in a way that adds to their story.
I don't mind Elven Shadar-kai, and mechanically they look like they'll probably be fun. I don't like much of the rest of what we've seen, though, for them. The whole "they look hella old while in the Shadowfell" thing is kinda eye roll inducing, but easy to ignore. That's about all I can say for it.
The Raven Queen: I have a feeling that I, and the other DMs in my group, will just be completely ignoring every word of this section of the book. There's so much wrong, here, I don't know where to start. Which sucks, because I was really excited to see that she would be in a 5e book.
Why is the "multiverse" so cohesive that it's a problem for her to be a greater god in one world and not exist at all in another, and be comperable to an archfey in a third? Do they think that the general audience doesn't know what a multiverse is? Alternate dimensions are pretty common fare in popular culture. Literally, "the gods take different forms in different worlds, and some have more influence in one world than in another" is both necessary anyway, and all that is necessary, for them to make sense of this sort of thing. Are they going to change how the Eberron cosmology works, now? Will there be a Correlon there, now? A Moradin? Worse, a Gruumsh? Nah.
Why has her fundamental nature as a character changed? Even if you need her to not be a god, that doesn't necessitate making her basically an evil interloper figure who tortures souls by making them eternally relive the tragic cycle of their life for her entertainment. That is literally antithetical to what the character was previously.
The whole "basically a hermit, possibly trapped in her crappy little dilapidated tower" thing is also just weird. Are they trying to make her a mix of a Dark Power and a lord of a realm from Ravenloft? Why?
Halflings: Okay...there is some interesting stuff here...but, also some unnecessary and strange decisions? Why is it so hard to imagine Halflings raising armies and defending a realm, or invading one, or just...defending their homes from orcs? They're incredibly nimble, coordinated, agile, and accurate with ranged and light weapons, excellent at stealth, fearless, and good at using their size to their advantage. They could literally be terrifying combatants, on offense or defense. The abillity to hide in the path of the enemy, spring up in their midst while they march, and be much better at stabbing them than the enemy is at hitting back (at worst just as high accuracy plus higher ability to dodge attacks), while being able to competently move through enemy lines, meaning the enemy basically can't control the nature of the fight by putting their bodies in the way of a halfling manuever...not to mention the potential of halfling light cavalry, especially of the style popular everywhere but Europe throughout history, ie, horse archers. Potentially riding mastiffs. While weighing so little that their mounts can run faster for longer without tiring, and making smaller targets for return fire. Just...look, halflings and gnomes could win wars, is my point. Even before factoring in the Halfling's Lucky trait.
Just give me a setting where there have been halfling and/or gnome empires, and people recognize that they aren't useless weaklings. Even Eberron does it. The halflings have been conquered in the past, but have never been a force to fear militarily, in spite of having a culture of light cavalry riding fricken raptors and pteradactyls! Come on! Flying cavalry didn't give Galafar pause centuries before the first airship was built? A standard human army didn't get wrecked trying to invade mongol-esque horse archers on what amounts to really fact wolves? Backed up by the best healers in the world, flying archers, and people with supernatural facility in the art of wartime logistics (mark of hospitality would be unimaginably useful in war, tbh).
Anyway, it's weird to me to take that whole idea so far as to imagine that the cosmos has conspired to keep them safe in spite of them being incapable to keeping themselves safe. It...infantilises a player race in a way that, to me, makes them both less interesting and less appropriate as a player race.
Gnomes: Too little info to really say anything, yet, except that I'm stoked for clockwork stuff.
Blood War: I don't really care about this conflict at all, but more info on devils will be useful, and I'm sure my fellow DM in my group whose campaign seems to be pointing toward fiendish influence in the end game will appreciate it.
Gith: Honestly the lore that I'm most unambiguously excited about in this book. My favorite Gith lore was in 4e, by far, but I haven't read or heard anything that makes me think I'll dislike the 5e take on them. I may even play a Githzerai monk sometime soon, if we have a campaign where it doesn't feel weird to play a Gith.
Worlds other than FR: I'm happy that most of the chapters have a section in the ToC for different settings, but the cosmological changes in the book worry me wrt what those sections will have to say.
Overall, I am excited for the book, but have some strong reservations about some of the lore decisions.
Truth be told, I don't know much of FR lore, so to me there is no basis to compare the lore to. I've ran several games in homebrew campaigns, so I've never truly visited the Realms except in a few video games (Baldurs Gate II for example), a couple of LFR sessions and more recently the adventure league. That said, my homebrew campaign is a mix and match of my own machinations and the "canon" lore in the books. I've added lore from 4E and 5E to my own ideas to make it all my own, and I love the inspiration that the books provide and which I think MToF will provide. To go into details of what you mentioned:
Dwarves: I feel that the MToF is written to make Dwarves look like the bad guys, from the perspective of the Duergar. Surely they will feel they've been abandoned because they've been enslaved, but the Dwarves will feel like they've been merciful to allow them to live and not actively hunt them down (like say the Gith do with Illithids). A lot of these conflicts are a matter of perspective and perhaps we'll learn both sides from the book.
Elves: I don't really know the 4E lore, since I've never had an Elf in my party at 4E (don't really know why, just never happened) but I do like the lore as described will be in MToF. It adds to the mystery of an already mysterious race. About the Shadar-kai, I've always felt they'd be suited to be somewhat elvish in look and feel, so making them an Elf subrace feels fine. The whole "they look hella old while in the Shadowfell" thing (as you so so greatly described it XD) is something that I think will not come up too often, and if you'd want it to come up it can really work with it story wise.
The raven queen: I don't really know much about her other than what was said in the player handbook of 4e, so I'm not bothered. It seems rather interesting to me but I can understand if it deviates a lot from what you know that it can be jarring. I guess we'll just have to see what happens when we actually get our hands on MToF.
Halflings: I agree that halflings suffer from LotR-istic influences. They've never been interesting to me. I guess that this has to do with the "default" world being the Realms other than say Dark Sun or Eberron. However, it does make the whole "exceptional member of the race" trope more feasable; the less interested a people/race is in adventuring, the more special you feel playing an adventurer of that race. I dunno, I do agree that Halflings could be more interesting (like in Eberron).
Gnomes: Clockwork stuff!!!!
Blood War: I'm absolutely stoked about this. My current campaign is all about the balance between Good and Evil in the multiverse, so this fits right up that particular alley. Can't wait to read it!
Gith: They seem very cool, lore wise and mechanically, so I'm really curious to find out more. Loved them since 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook but never got around to actually use them in my campaigns. I'm thinking astral realm faring space pirates... Yarr!
Other worlds: I really hope that this section doesn't provide a lot of information. Why? Because the more info there is there, the less likely that the other campaign settings are released in book form. Perhaps this is a bit negative, but I don't want Dark Sun to be a sidebar, I want a full (if not several) book on the setting, perhaps in the vein of 4e where there also was a monster manual specifically for the setting. The same goes for Eberron and all the other great settings out there that I don't know about.
I love just about everything I've heard about the book so far. It's expanding on a bunch of stuff that I needed to fill out in order to have a good go at running Planescape in 5e; Gith, the Blood War, etc. I may not be interested in the direction they take other things, like the Raven Queen, but that's okay because I tend to cherry pick stuff anyway. I don't really feel beholden to take everything in the book as canon, but i'll use parts of it for sure. The way i see it the lore in the book isn't going to hinder my own games, just potentially inform the direction they go in.
I do like the changes to the elves though. The idea that they are capable of reaching godhood innately, unlike other races, is fascinating.
Frankly, the biggest reason i want the book is to see how Wotc writes the voice of Shemeshka the Marauder, a character i've wanted to use as an NPC for a long time. I like the way they did the voice of the Xanathar, so i'm excited just to see what their notes are like. lmao
Dwarves: I feel that the MToF is written to make Dwarves look like the bad guys, from the perspective of the Duergar. Surely they will feel they've been abandoned because they've been enslaved, but the Dwarves will feel like they've been merciful to allow them to live and not actively hunt them down (like say the Gith do with Illithids). A lot of these conflicts are a matter of perspective and perhaps we'll learn both sides from the book.
Elves: I don't really know the 4E lore, since I've never had an Elf in my party at 4E (don't really know why, just never happened) but I do like the lore as described will be in MToF. It adds to the mystery of an already mysterious race. About the Shadar-kai, I've always felt they'd be suited to be somewhat elvish in look and feel, so making them an Elf subrace feels fine. The whole "they look hella old while in the Shadowfell" thing (as you so so greatly described it XD) is something that I think will not come up too often, and if you'd want it to come up it can really work with it story wise.
The raven queen: I don't really know much about her other than what was said in the player handbook of 4e, so I'm not bothered. It seems rather interesting to me but I can understand if it deviates a lot from what you know that it can be jarring. I guess we'll just have to see what happens when we actually get our hands on MToF.
Halflings: I agree that halflings suffer from LotR-istic influences. They've never been interesting to me. I guess that this has to do with the "default" world being the Realms other than say Dark Sun or Eberron. However, it does make the whole "exceptional member of the race" trope more feasable; the less interested a people/race is in adventuring, the more special you feel playing an adventurer of that race. I dunno, I do agree that Halflings could be more interesting (like in Eberron).
Gnomes: Clockwork stuff!!!!
Other worlds: I really hope that this section doesn't provide a lot of information. Why? Because the more info there is there, the less likely that the other campaign settings are released in book form. Perhaps this is a bit negative, but I don't want Dark Sun to be a sidebar, I want a full (if not several) book on the setting, perhaps in the vein of 4e where there also was a monster manual specifically for the setting. The same goes for Eberron and all the other great settings out there that I don't know about.
I'd be fine with minimal info in the other worlds bits.
As for Dwarves, even what you describe makes Dwarven culture corrupt and kinda...on the bad side of Neutral, to me? Like, "we are being merciful by ONLY rejecting your return and not genociding the lot of you" is not a mindset that is compatible with the "Lawful Good" tendency that the PHB says Dwarves have.
I love just about everything I've heard about the book so far. It's expanding on a bunch of stuff that I needed to fill out in order to have a good go at running Planescape in 5e; Gith, the Blood War, etc. I may not be interested in the direction they take other things, like the Raven Queen, but that's okay because I tend to cherry pick stuff anyway. I don't really feel beholden to take everything in the book as canon, but i'll use parts of it for sure. The way i see it the lore in the book isn't going to hinder my own games, just potentially inform the direction they go in.
I do like the changes to the elves though. The idea that they are capable of reaching godhood innately, unlike other races, is fascinating.
Frankly, the biggest reason i want the book is to see how Wotc writes the voice of Shemeshka the Marauder, a character i've wanted to use as an NPC for a long time. I like the way they did the voice of the Xanathar, so i'm excited just to see what their notes are like. lmao
I like the elf stuff, too, just not the Correlon stuff, or really what we've heard about Lolth or RQ.
As for Dwarves, even what you describe makes Dwarven culture corrupt and kinda...on the bad side of Neutral, to me? Like, "we are being merciful by ONLY rejecting your return and not genociding the lot of you" is not a mindset that is compatible with the "Lawful Good" tendency that the PHB says Dwarves have.
Didn't think of it that way, you're right. Dwarves ARE mostly lawful and mostly good... Damn it now I want the explanation even more :P
Why is the "multiverse" so cohesive that it's a problem for her to be a greater god in one world and not exist at all in another, and be comperable to an archfey in a third? Do they think that the general audience doesn't know what a multiverse is? Alternate dimensions are pretty common fare in popular culture. Literally, "the gods take different forms in different worlds, and some have more influence in one world than in another" is both necessary anyway, and all that is necessary, for them to make sense of this sort of thing. Are they going to change how the Eberron cosmology works, now? Will there be a Correlon there, now? A Moradin? Worse, a Gruumsh? Nah.
According to Chris Perkins and Matt Sernet, in one of the Dragon Talks from a couple weeks ago, this is exactly how the multiverse behaves. On the world of Nerath, the the 4e core setting, the Raven Queen is still the 4e Raven Queen. While on Greyhawk, the Raven Queen doesn't exist. It's still the previous god of death. I believe it was Matt Sernet that mentions Mike Mearls saying essentially the same thing in a recent D&D Beyond video.
MToF isn't a replacement of her lore, it's an addition to it. It's an alternative take. As a massive fan of the 4e Raven Queen, I am super excited to see how this alternate take pans out. And the explanation for the differences still feels like it's all very much in keeping with her character.
As for Dwarves, even what you describe makes Dwarven culture corrupt and kinda...on the bad side of Neutral, to me? Like, "we are being merciful by ONLY rejecting your return and not genociding the lot of you" is not a mindset that is compatible with the "Lawful Good" tendency that the PHB says Dwarves have.
Didn't think of it that way, you're right. Dwarves ARE mostly lawful and mostly good... Damn it now I want the explanation even more :P
Yeah. Hopefully it makes a lot more sense than the video did.
Why is the "multiverse" so cohesive that it's a problem for her to be a greater god in one world and not exist at all in another, and be comperable to an archfey in a third? Do they think that the general audience doesn't know what a multiverse is? Alternate dimensions are pretty common fare in popular culture. Literally, "the gods take different forms in different worlds, and some have more influence in one world than in another" is both necessary anyway, and all that is necessary, for them to make sense of this sort of thing. Are they going to change how the Eberron cosmology works, now? Will there be a Correlon there, now? A Moradin? Worse, a Gruumsh? Nah.
According to Chris Perkins and Matt Sernet, in one of the Dragon Talks from a couple weeks ago, this is exactly how the multiverse behaves. On the world of Nerath, the the 4e core setting, the Raven Queen is still the 4e Raven Queen. While on Greyhawk, the Raven Queen doesn't exist. It's still the previous god of death. I believe it was Matt Sernet that mentions Mike Mearls saying essentially the same thing in a recent D&D Beyond video.
MToF isn't a replacement of her lore, it's an addition to it. It's an alternative take. As a massive fan of the 4e Raven Queen, I am super excited to see how this alternate take pans out. And the explanation for the differences still feels like it's all very much in keeping with her character.
That's heartening, but very different from what Mearls actually said in the video. He specifically said that in Points of Light, people think of her as a god (his wording and tone cast doubt as to whether or not those folks are even correct), who killed Nerrull and took his place, but the people of Greyhawk would find that a little odd, since Nerull is still around there. The implication seemed to be that Nerull's status in Greyhawk was somehow relevant to PoL.
I very strongly hope that he simply worded his statements poorly, and it looks much more like the statements you're describing from Dragon Talk.
To be honest, the wording you gave is almost exactly like what Perkins and Sernet used. Greyhawk people will ask "Raven Queen who?" but she'll still be exactly the same in Nerath.
But I would have to rewatch that video to be sure I guess.
To be honest, the wording you gave is almost exactly like what Perkins and Sernet used. Greyhawk people will ask "Raven Queen who?" but she'll still be exactly the same in Nerath.
But I would have to rewatch that video to be sure I guess.
I probably won't watch Dragon Talk just for that, honestly. I'll just take your word for it, and wait for the book. It was included in the Legendary Bundle when I got it, anyway, so it's not like I wasn't going to get it.
As for Dwarves, even what you describe makes Dwarven culture corrupt and kinda...on the bad side of Neutral, to me? Like, "we are being merciful by ONLY rejecting your return and not genociding the lot of you" is not a mindset that is compatible with the "Lawful Good" tendency that the PHB says Dwarves have.
Didn't think of it that way, you're right. Dwarves ARE mostly lawful and mostly good... Damn it now I want the explanation even more :P
Dwarves tend toward Lawful Good because they work so hard at maintaining civil obedience and a desire for actualization through contribution. Dwarves are not selfish by nature . . . so I'm wondering if he view the surface dwarves have with the duergar has less to do with attitude and more to do with practice. For as long as I can remember surface dwarves were viewed as master craftsmen under the mountains. They were perceived as narrow-minded and quick to dismiss disorder despite the obvious discord they themselves spent very little time if any attempting to resolve. They ignored it.
In contrast, the duergar, in my opinion, were less interested in the cannot and more interested in the moving forward, but that left them vulnerable to enslavement, because they were looking for answers.
I'm curious about MToF if for no other reason than the volume answers some of this conflict, gives character and NPCs the motivation which side of the fight to choose: abide by the rules or self-determination?
As for Dwarves, even what you describe makes Dwarven culture corrupt and kinda...on the bad side of Neutral, to me? Like, "we are being merciful by ONLY rejecting your return and not genociding the lot of you" is not a mindset that is compatible with the "Lawful Good" tendency that the PHB says Dwarves have.
Didn't think of it that way, you're right. Dwarves ARE mostly lawful and mostly good... Damn it now I want the explanation even more :P
Dwarves tend toward Lawful Good because they work so hard at maintaining civil obedience and a desire for actualization through contribution. Dwarves are not selfish by nature . . . so I'm wondering if he view the surface dwarves have with the duergar has less to do with attitude and more to do with practice. For as long as I can remember surface dwarves were viewed as master craftsmen under the mountains. They were perceived as narrow-minded and quick to dismiss disorder despite the obvious discord they themselves spent very little time if any attempting to resolve. They ignored it.
In contrast, the duergar, in my opinion, were less interested in the cannot and more interested in the moving forward, but that left them vulnerable to enslavement, because they were looking for answers.
I'm curious about MToF if for no other reason than the volume answers some of this conflict, gives character and NPCs the motivation which side of the fight to choose: abide by the rules or self-determination?
An interesting take, for sure. Either way, it's not like modern Dwarves need to be judgmental a-holes just because their ancestors were, even if the book presents them in the worst possible light. Could even be interesting to play a Dwarf who has read enough ancient history to know how things played out, and thinks that the Dwarves have failed to learn from those events.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We do bones, motherf***ker!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, we all know by now that they've made some changes to the lore of certain races, and I'm wondering how people feel about them, what you'll use/disregard, what is exciting and what is irritating to you about what we know about this book, so far.
Warning, long post! Feel free to skim or skip!
Mechanics: I like nearly everything I've seen so far, mechanically. Even the stuff where I won't be using the lore, I'm stoked for the crunchy bits.
Dwarves: I like their thoughts on the impact of their origins on their culture, and I appreciate that Mearls explicitly said in a video that it IS cultural, not "genetic", and that a Duergar raised as a dwarf would just act and think like a dwarf, and vise versa. I despise racial alignment in sentient races.
OTOH, I feel like the story as told in the videos makes the dwarves into the bad guys of that story. Well, the Illithid are the real bad guys no matter what, but after that event, the Dwarves fanatically rejected their cousins because they let themselves get enslaved and corrupted, without ever giving them a chance to show that they still valued Dwarven values and wanted to serve Moradin and all that jazz. That is pretty gross fundamentalist fanaticism of a kind that makes it hard to sympathize with the Dwarves.
Also, from the video, it seems that Duergar didn't become slaving a-holes, or otherwise reject dwarven values or reject Moradin, until after the Dwarves callously rejected them, and "proved" to the Duergar that it was all a lie, etc. So, the Dwarves ultimately caused the Duergar to be anything worse just than a physically mutated magical dwarf subrace with some tragedy in their past, and a really good cautionary tale about not chasing the voice of greed. Instead, the Dwarves caused the Duergar to learn that Dwarven values are BS, none of it matters, their kin cared more about "purity" than about their own kin, and maybe we should just burn it all down, ya'll.
Elves: I like a lot of it, but I gotta say i strongly prefer the 4e Lolth story. The idea of taking the Seldarine and making all of them but Correlon be former Elves is weird, to me, as is the sudden decision to make Correlon an absent, indifferent, father, and all of it just makes the elven pantheon less interesting, to me. Also, why on earth does the book describe elves (in one of the recent previews) as "rarely frivilous", and talk about them like they're morose downers? That's...a different take, for sure, and not one that I think adds anything or keeps the basic "soul" of the race intact.
But I do like the Eladrin, for the most part. I like the idea that elves used to be beings of limitless form, who eventually came to be a specific form. It makes sense of the somewhat wild dimorphism in the race, in a way that adds to their story.
I don't mind Elven Shadar-kai, and mechanically they look like they'll probably be fun. I don't like much of the rest of what we've seen, though, for them. The whole "they look hella old while in the Shadowfell" thing is kinda eye roll inducing, but easy to ignore. That's about all I can say for it.
The Raven Queen: I have a feeling that I, and the other DMs in my group, will just be completely ignoring every word of this section of the book. There's so much wrong, here, I don't know where to start. Which sucks, because I was really excited to see that she would be in a 5e book.
Halflings: Okay...there is some interesting stuff here...but, also some unnecessary and strange decisions? Why is it so hard to imagine Halflings raising armies and defending a realm, or invading one, or just...defending their homes from orcs? They're incredibly nimble, coordinated, agile, and accurate with ranged and light weapons, excellent at stealth, fearless, and good at using their size to their advantage. They could literally be terrifying combatants, on offense or defense. The abillity to hide in the path of the enemy, spring up in their midst while they march, and be much better at stabbing them than the enemy is at hitting back (at worst just as high accuracy plus higher ability to dodge attacks), while being able to competently move through enemy lines, meaning the enemy basically can't control the nature of the fight by putting their bodies in the way of a halfling manuever...not to mention the potential of halfling light cavalry, especially of the style popular everywhere but Europe throughout history, ie, horse archers. Potentially riding mastiffs. While weighing so little that their mounts can run faster for longer without tiring, and making smaller targets for return fire. Just...look, halflings and gnomes could win wars, is my point. Even before factoring in the Halfling's Lucky trait.
Just give me a setting where there have been halfling and/or gnome empires, and people recognize that they aren't useless weaklings. Even Eberron does it. The halflings have been conquered in the past, but have never been a force to fear militarily, in spite of having a culture of light cavalry riding fricken raptors and pteradactyls! Come on! Flying cavalry didn't give Galafar pause centuries before the first airship was built? A standard human army didn't get wrecked trying to invade mongol-esque horse archers on what amounts to really fact wolves? Backed up by the best healers in the world, flying archers, and people with supernatural facility in the art of wartime logistics (mark of hospitality would be unimaginably useful in war, tbh).
Anyway, it's weird to me to take that whole idea so far as to imagine that the cosmos has conspired to keep them safe in spite of them being incapable to keeping themselves safe. It...infantilises a player race in a way that, to me, makes them both less interesting and less appropriate as a player race.
Gnomes: Too little info to really say anything, yet, except that I'm stoked for clockwork stuff.
Blood War: I don't really care about this conflict at all, but more info on devils will be useful, and I'm sure my fellow DM in my group whose campaign seems to be pointing toward fiendish influence in the end game will appreciate it.
Gith: Honestly the lore that I'm most unambiguously excited about in this book. My favorite Gith lore was in 4e, by far, but I haven't read or heard anything that makes me think I'll dislike the 5e take on them. I may even play a Githzerai monk sometime soon, if we have a campaign where it doesn't feel weird to play a Gith.
Worlds other than FR: I'm happy that most of the chapters have a section in the ToC for different settings, but the cosmological changes in the book worry me wrt what those sections will have to say.
Overall, I am excited for the book, but have some strong reservations about some of the lore decisions.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Truth be told, I don't know much of FR lore, so to me there is no basis to compare the lore to. I've ran several games in homebrew campaigns, so I've never truly visited the Realms except in a few video games (Baldurs Gate II for example), a couple of LFR sessions and more recently the adventure league. That said, my homebrew campaign is a mix and match of my own machinations and the "canon" lore in the books. I've added lore from 4E and 5E to my own ideas to make it all my own, and I love the inspiration that the books provide and which I think MToF will provide. To go into details of what you mentioned:
Dwarves: I feel that the MToF is written to make Dwarves look like the bad guys, from the perspective of the Duergar. Surely they will feel they've been abandoned because they've been enslaved, but the Dwarves will feel like they've been merciful to allow them to live and not actively hunt them down (like say the Gith do with Illithids). A lot of these conflicts are a matter of perspective and perhaps we'll learn both sides from the book.
Elves: I don't really know the 4E lore, since I've never had an Elf in my party at 4E (don't really know why, just never happened) but I do like the lore as described will be in MToF. It adds to the mystery of an already mysterious race. About the Shadar-kai, I've always felt they'd be suited to be somewhat elvish in look and feel, so making them an Elf subrace feels fine. The whole "they look hella old while in the Shadowfell" thing (as you so so greatly described it XD) is something that I think will not come up too often, and if you'd want it to come up it can really work with it story wise.
The raven queen: I don't really know much about her other than what was said in the player handbook of 4e, so I'm not bothered. It seems rather interesting to me but I can understand if it deviates a lot from what you know that it can be jarring. I guess we'll just have to see what happens when we actually get our hands on MToF.
Halflings: I agree that halflings suffer from LotR-istic influences. They've never been interesting to me. I guess that this has to do with the "default" world being the Realms other than say Dark Sun or Eberron. However, it does make the whole "exceptional member of the race" trope more feasable; the less interested a people/race is in adventuring, the more special you feel playing an adventurer of that race. I dunno, I do agree that Halflings could be more interesting (like in Eberron).
Gnomes: Clockwork stuff!!!!
Blood War: I'm absolutely stoked about this. My current campaign is all about the balance between Good and Evil in the multiverse, so this fits right up that particular alley. Can't wait to read it!
Gith: They seem very cool, lore wise and mechanically, so I'm really curious to find out more. Loved them since 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook but never got around to actually use them in my campaigns. I'm thinking astral realm faring space pirates... Yarr!
Other worlds: I really hope that this section doesn't provide a lot of information. Why? Because the more info there is there, the less likely that the other campaign settings are released in book form. Perhaps this is a bit negative, but I don't want Dark Sun to be a sidebar, I want a full (if not several) book on the setting, perhaps in the vein of 4e where there also was a monster manual specifically for the setting. The same goes for Eberron and all the other great settings out there that I don't know about.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
I love just about everything I've heard about the book so far. It's expanding on a bunch of stuff that I needed to fill out in order to have a good go at running Planescape in 5e; Gith, the Blood War, etc. I may not be interested in the direction they take other things, like the Raven Queen, but that's okay because I tend to cherry pick stuff anyway. I don't really feel beholden to take everything in the book as canon, but i'll use parts of it for sure. The way i see it the lore in the book isn't going to hinder my own games, just potentially inform the direction they go in.
I do like the changes to the elves though. The idea that they are capable of reaching godhood innately, unlike other races, is fascinating.
Frankly, the biggest reason i want the book is to see how Wotc writes the voice of Shemeshka the Marauder, a character i've wanted to use as an NPC for a long time. I like the way they did the voice of the Xanathar, so i'm excited just to see what their notes are like. lmao
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
According to Chris Perkins and Matt Sernet, in one of the Dragon Talks from a couple weeks ago, this is exactly how the multiverse behaves. On the world of Nerath, the the 4e core setting, the Raven Queen is still the 4e Raven Queen. While on Greyhawk, the Raven Queen doesn't exist. It's still the previous god of death. I believe it was Matt Sernet that mentions Mike Mearls saying essentially the same thing in a recent D&D Beyond video.
MToF isn't a replacement of her lore, it's an addition to it. It's an alternative take. As a massive fan of the 4e Raven Queen, I am super excited to see how this alternate take pans out. And the explanation for the differences still feels like it's all very much in keeping with her character.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
To be honest, the wording you gave is almost exactly like what Perkins and Sernet used. Greyhawk people will ask "Raven Queen who?" but she'll still be exactly the same in Nerath.
But I would have to rewatch that video to be sure I guess.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
We do bones, motherf***ker!