Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Characters / DungeonsAndDragonsSettingSpecificCreatures

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
SanaNaryon Since: May, 2018
Apr 9th 2021 at 4:08:18 AM •••

This page requires some curation. Creatures like radiant idols and ravnican giants aren't as much setting-specific as they were just introduced first in a setting handbook, but can fit in any setting.

Hide / Show Replies
Tacitus Since: Jan, 2001
Apr 29th 2022 at 5:56:45 PM •••

Yeah, even the 3E Monsters of Faerun booklet specifies that "You can use them in any D&D game, but if you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, you will find some extra details that makes these monsters a special part of the setting." Which translates into an "In the Realms" paragraph at the end of the monster entries, similar to what 3.5E did post-Eberron when it explained how various Monster Manual creatures could fit into that setting. The 5E Ravenloft sourcebook is similar, in that its bestiary "presents stat blocks for a host of threats that can play a role in horror-based campaigns" that aren't necessarily native to that setting. Seriously, which Domain of Dread is the relentless juggernaut from?

One big problem with a "setting-specific creatures" page is that D&D itself hasn't been overly concerned with segregating monsters by origin. Eyewings and hatori were in the core AD&D Monstrous Manual instead of a Krynn sourcebook, as were Spelljammer creatures like giff and neogi. Planescape was more or less fully absorbed into the 3E default cosmology, so that slaadi and paraelemental creatures like belkers and thoqqua and rasts were in the core Monster Manual. Then that edition's Monster Manual II yoinked several creatures like the braxat and nightmare beast from Dark Sun, made them less psionic, and presented them for general consumption. The warforged, changelings and shifters introduced in Eberron reappeared in the Monster Manual III so any setting could use them. Draconians appeared in a 4E Draconomicon rather than a Dragonlance book, then the same thing happened in 5E. And so on.

So taking a "setting-specific creature" page seriously would involve chopping up a lot of the main creatures list for division among several setting subpages, including creatures that have become staple D&D monsters, because... why? Why would it be better for mephits and slaadi to be on the Planescape page than the general monster list? Do we really want people who don't know the different between Mystara and Spelljammer having to check multiple setting pages until they find the neogi, when currently the spider-eels are easily found on "Page N to Q" of the core bestiary?

All that to say, I wanna feed this page to the main monster index. There's a similar discussion going on at the "Playable Races" page over races that debuted in certain settings, and my suggestion there was to add an "origins" line above the "classification/CR/alignment" listing in the creature folders. That would maximize user-friendliness while letting people who were interested know that tomb tappers debuted in the Forgotten Realms setting, and would be less work than cut-and-pasting entries from the main monster list into subpages, and potentially splitting those subpages if they got too big.

Buuuuut... I'm not so sure about stuff like the Theros and Ravnica monsters. Because those are not only distinct settings, but non-D&D settings that existed independently before being ported to 5E via the power of corporate synergy. I'd expect stuff like warforged and dragonians to keep reappearing in future Monster Manuals and the like, not so much wurms and felidar. As much as I prefer lumping to splitting, I'd be comfortable keeping those third-party creatures separate from the main monster index.

Current earworm: "UNDERWILDS"
Tacitus Since: Jan, 2001
Aug 12th 2023 at 8:33:31 AM •••

Right. Since there are now "Origin" tags on the main critter index, I plan on migrating entries off this page onto it, so that someday this page may be laid to rest.

Not migrating everything, though. My thinking is that the Magic creatures can be left behind, firstly because they're from a non-D&D IP with its own work page, secondly because a lot of them are just non-entries with as much depth as a trading card and only a trope or two to their name.

Or to put it another way, creatures from Forgotten Realms and Eberron and the like are going to keep appearing in core D&D rulebooks in editions to come, but if D&D ever changes owners, there's not much chance of those Magic-al beings ever appearing in an official sourcebook in the future.

Thoughts, objections? I'm obviously not moving quickly on this, so there's plenty of time.

Current earworm: "UNDERWILDS"
HTD (Elder Troper)
Sep 21st 2023 at 3:32:08 AM •••

Funny enough, this page came into existence at the first place because another troper didn't like how I added creatures from MTG to the main page (because they were, well, specific to Ravnica). I even brought up how a few creatures can be iconic to one particular setting without being specific to it (modrons and draconians), but then decided that I could just put them on the main page anyway.

In any case, I wouldn't mind migrating this entire page to the main pages. And by that, I mean all entries, not just the ones not specific to MTG (though things like MTG demons should probably still have their own folders to distinguish them from D&D demons). At this point, they are as much part of D&D as, say, Eberron creatures. I don't consider the low number of examples to be a problem either—the entry is valid as long as it has at least one example, and they can always be expanded later on.

Edited by HTD
Tacitus Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 22nd 2023 at 6:26:32 PM •••

I'mma have to disagree. Eberron was the winning entry in a 2002 WotC "Fantasy Setting Search," and its first book came out in 2004. It was designed from the ground up to be a D&D campaign setting like Dragonlance or Mystara, and has been a part of D&D through three editions of the game.

Ravnica, Theros and Strixhaven are all established settings in a completely unrelated media franchise, but beginning in 2018, they were adapted for D&D 5E with campaign books, I'm sure in no small part because Wizards owns both franchises and wouldn't have to pay any licensing fees when using MtG content. They're about as much a part of D&D as Minecraft and Rick and Morty, which have official "partnered content" allowing Creepers and Lycanthropickles to be used in games of 5E.

Or to put it another way, I feel the Magic the Gathering stuff belongs on the D&D character pages as much as Lord of the Rings stuff belongs on the Magic character page after that crossover card set.

Maybe we could set up an "(Official) Crossover Content" subpage? That would be a good place for the Magic stuff and the Legend of the Five Rings creatures from the 3E Oriental Adventures book. And god forbid the Lycanthropickles, in the event someone decides to write a folder for them.

Current earworm: "UNDERWILDS"
Top