Rumor: After MotMV is released, you won't be able to buy Volos or MToF separately

[Dork_Forge]

Don't allow yourselves to be browbeaten. Its a bullying tactic designed to make you shut up. Just because one voice is posting more times than others doesn't make it the majority voice. You have a right to be heard just as much as any other poster in this thread does.

This is a good point, thank you for the support.

What makes you think they want to keep selling that lore? Why should they be forced to do so?

Let's be blunt, who cares what they want in isolation? You lose that right when you start marketing your product to a large audience that determines your future.

Why should the be forced to do so? Forced to do what, keep raking in money from books that paid for themselves years ago? If you want an actual reason, because what they're doing is not only shady, but also fragmenting the game and player base.

For example, the old Lizardfolk entry includes gems like "lacking in emotion and empathy...serves as an apt description" and "they don't mourn fallen comrades or rage against their enemies." Not only is that kind of prescriptive roleplaying a WotC-endorsed shackle on any prospective lizardfolk players, it applies to Lizardfolk on every single setting in their multiverse by default. If the devs later conclude "hmm, that description was actually kind of narrow-minded and might encourage Lizardfolk PCs to behave in an antisocial way" they should be allowed to change it - especially if they witnessed that kind of behavior firsthand at conventions or FLGS. And it's telling that MPMM Lizardfolk contain absolutely none of that kind of language anymore.

They're presenting something that isn't just humans in funny hats? *gasp!* How dare they!

Here's also part of the intro to Lizardfolk that you didn't cherry pick:

"Despite their alien outlook, some lizardfolk make an effort to understand and, in their own manner, befriend people of other ratces. Such lizardfolk make faithful and skilled allies."

Or how about from that same cherry picked section of yours?

"A lizardfolk who lives among other humanoids can, over time, learn to respect other creatures' emotions."

Or how about the text of the Hapless Soft Ones entry, where they can fiercely protect other humanoids as they view them like hatchlings that need to be protected?

Taking the fluff of lizardfolk and using it to play in an antisocial or problematic way is a player problem. The entire times since Volo's has graced shelves people have played them with no issue.

I'm also severely doubting the design team have seen little to anything first hand in conventions and gaming stores.

I think there's not enough consideration being given to the idea that they simply regret some of what they wrote in VGtM and MToF and wish to retract it. They can't (and shouldn't try) to take anyone's purchased books away from them, but they CAN clearly and definitively say that "this is not how we want to design races going forward" and make a clean break with that older material.

Here's something: Volo's is a Forgotten Realms book, a real life version of a fictional work by a character from that world. It is full of forgotten realms lore. All they have to do is reference how they were described and say 'that's how many are in the FR, but in otherworlds they can, and are, different' just like they've done with umpteen other things.

And what, about any of this, is a clean break to you? Seriously?

A clean break is waiting until edition change.

A clean break doesn't lead to confusion when a group of mixed years of experience suddenly get confused why one owns a book the other didn't get included with their 'buy all material' bundle on D&D Beyond.

Nothing about this is clean, and regardless what they think of what's already published, it exists. They can't make that go away and that's all this seems like, a shady way to push it away.

And don't say about problematic material, they wholesale ripped entire paragraphs out of Volos to remove 'problematic material' with errata.

.

^ And this right here is why I'm still arguing. Because it's one thing to say "I don't like their reasons for doing this" - you have every right to be entitled to your preferences and tastes and no one, not even me, should silence that. But to say "they haven't given/don't have any reasons for doing this" is just a blatant lie, and it's one that a bunch of you keep repeating ad nauseam. Just be honest and say you don't like their reasons rather than saying they haven't given any. (On top of falsely claiming they broke some kind of blood oath that nobody has been able to reproduce.)

They have broken a lot of what they promised for 5e, how about you go and google it if you have such a hard time believing that a company did such a terrible thing? One poster already gave a quote about how they would not use errata, and then showed how they broke that. Publishing a new book at the same time doesn't excuse that behaviour.

And stop accusing the people that don't agree with you as being dishonest or lying. I've been perfectly clear about what I don't like about WotC new direction in many, many threads, including this one. But if you're so adamant and are such a fan of proof:

Point to a quote from WotC that transparently explained why they removing certain books, that explains what happens to the material that 'falls through the cracks' by not getting a new version or republished.

They out right lied to the consumer base when Tasha's was released. That is a fact. They have eroded trust that they had built and continuing shady practices like this only increases that, and can only be looked at in a skeptical light with that background.

You want to believe it's nothing but honesty and altruism? Good for you. Lots of us don't, and you defending WotC just comes off as they can do no wrong and us that don't like it better move on or keep opening our wallets.

If you say that we are entitled to our opinion, and voicing our opinion, then act in a way that actually supports it instead of challenging it on flimsy standings like 'they didn't use errata to change SCAG, they published a new book!' That's like a toddler saying they didn't do anything wrong, because the rule is no hitting and they bit their classmate.

The mechanical option I'm guessing is deliberate because they feel they have a better design. So for new players they're just offering the current best mechanics (as far as they're concerned anyway). And again, if you already own and enjoy the older material you can still use it.

As to the lore, is there anything important being removed? Or is it part of the new design, making it so that entire races aren't inherently evil?

They're removing lore for how things work in specific settings and removing helpful roleplay aids for DMs. Because sorry, Beholders being cuddly and friendly is not the default in 5E.

Omitting the Tiefling variants isn't replaced by anything. It's just removing it. The Tiefling is PHB so doesn't have a new overall version.

Oh and unless they errata SCAG, which I haven't seen word of yet, they're creating multiple versions of the same race options, that's just confusing fragmentation.

When designers can see there was a better way to design something, you know what they normally, and should, do? Do that next time.

Do it in 2024, or whenever 6E will actually be. Don't do it in some random damn book with a disjointed release schedule and revoke older books.