D&D (2024) RD&D MM will have nearly 500 Monsters, and new NPCs.

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I suspect they've looked at Monster Manual Expanded and similar products and will be providing more variants for existing monsters, to allow DMs to use the classics in a wider variety of circumstances. Which is good, honestly. There's a reason the MME series is so dang popular.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The real question is will they stick with the absurdly bloated and wasteful stat block design or condense things a bit. Adding 200 monsters to the MM is basically adding 200+ pages with the 2014 stat blocks.

I agree. The monster math was terrible through most of 4e, but the statblock was a thing of beauty. A hybrid of the 4e and 5e design would be great, IMO.

The stat blocks will probably be more or less what they look like now, they'll just cut the descriptive text down to like a paragraph. Or a few sentences.

Basically, I expect the 2024 Monster Manual to be formatted a lot like the 2008 Monster Manual.

I doubt that they will get rid of lore! Wordiness and repetition, perhaps, so I expect that they'll rewrite it to go for the most info they can get across in the least words (maybe), but no, I doubt the book will be lore-light. Shoring up their IP (and the D&D "take" on non-IP monsters) is going to be a big part of the game going forward.

 

[wingsandsword]

Revised D&D. WotC is still trying to downplay the edition change to 5e "Revised".

I might roll my eyes a bit, but they can do what they like with their game, so "5e Revised" it is!

Well, if we can have 3.5 as 3rd edition revised, we can have a 5th edition revised.

At least this is WotC moving closer to a proper version number for this edition rather than call it "one D&D"

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, if we can have 3.5 as 3rd edition revised, we can have a 5th edition revised.

At least this is WotC moving closer to a proper version number for this edition rather than call it "one D&D"

They never planned to call it One D&D and were clear (well, clear enough for me and many others, anyhow) that that name was for the initiative of combining D&D the RPG with D&D Beyond & upcoming D&D VTTs and whatever video content they have planned.

"It's ALL one D&D!"

It was very similar to how 5e was never going to be called "D&DNext". Of course, they ALSO didn't want to call it 5e, but here we are... the community doesn't collectively cooperate with WotC's marketing, and never has.

We'll have to see what we call it in the end. Probably 5.5 (which I personally hate. Actually, what I really hate is when we're on a base-edition and people actually speak the words "five-point-oh" (which happened A LOT with "four-point-oh".) I had to keep saying, "It's just fourth edition!"

I've found that I really don't like how people like to call things by whatever they feel like calling it, and not by what they're asked to call it. For me, the annoyance I think comes from TNG when Dr. Pulaski called Data "Dah-tuh".

In more recent times (and a more extreme example), it makes me think of dead naming someone. Obviously the crime of calling the upcoming revised books "five-point-five" is not as insensitive as dead naming an actual person, but still... it's in a similar range of stubbornly refusing to call someone (or something in this case) by their NAME.

It's rude and doesn't take a lot of effort to correct.

 

[Lidgar]

I shall call the new edition Tim.

 

[JEB]

I doubt that they will get rid of lore! Wordiness and repetition, perhaps, so I expect that they'll rewrite it to go for the most info they can get across in the least words (maybe), but no, I doubt the book will be lore-light. Shoring up their IP (and the D&D "take" on non-IP monsters) is going to be a big part of the game going forward.

Even if they were inclined to keep the amount of lore they had in the 2014 version (which wouldn't follow the last few years' trend on such), I don't know how they could under the physical constraints of the book (~200 new stat blocks, larger font size than the 2014 edition).

As for IP protection, they don't need much lore for that, just a few things they can point to as distinctive (and copyrightable) features. I bet they can fit what they need for that into a sentence or two. Plus artwork, of course (which means even less room for text).

 

[Staffan]

Well, if we can have 3.5 as 3rd edition revised, we can have a 5th edition revised.

At least this is WotC moving closer to a proper version number for this edition rather than call it "one D&D"

They could take a tip from Catalyst and call it "D&D 50th Anniversary Edition."

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As for IP protection, they don't need much lore for that, just a few things they can point to as distinctive (and copyrightable) features. I bet they can fit what they need for that into a sentence or two. Plus artwork, of course (which means even less room for text).

Not protection, so much as to build IDENTITY.

But I get what you're saying. I just hope whatever lore they include is evocative. And if the art is good, it will say a lot about the creature, too.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They could take a tip from Catalyst and call it "D&D 50th Anniversary Edition."

That's what I thought they were going to call it, but I think it will more be "50th Anniversary Revised Core D&D!"... with no mention of the word Edition (probably not even 5e, though that might be in some small print somewhere).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They could take a tip from Catalyst and call it "D&D 50th Anniversary Edition."

This is what I expected them to do, although also expected them to sell a version with gold foil on the logos and elsewhere on the cover (not to mention an Honor Among Thieves boxed set), so I am clearly out of step with the thinking in Redmond.