D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)

[dave2008]

What kind of impact does changing a monsters classification have?
What changes now that a goblin is considered fey?

I accept my ignorance on the matter.

As noted previously in this thread - charm person only works on Humanoids, so it will not work on goblinoids anymore.

 

[KYRON45]

As noted previously in this thread - charm person only works on Humanoids, so it will not work on goblinoids anymore.

I would never have known that.
Thanks for responding.

 

[mamba]

To take the dragon as an example, the DM I spoke to said they could use it as a claw, bite, or tail attack.

yes, that was what I was wondering, if that included tail or wing. Personally I’d prefer different attacks for these, I understand it bloats the stat block, but it makes sense for these to not all have the same effect

 

[mamba]

I always hated how a ton of monsters in the 2014 PHB had bite, claw, tail, and other melee attacks that did similar amounts of damage just of different damage types (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing). Dragons were especially bad in this regard. Either merge them into a single Rend attack or give additional effects to the different attacks (grapple, prone, push, etc).

yes, they should not be too similar, but I would rather lean the other direction and make them more distinct, esp for something like a dragon, for a tiger that can go either way, the variance will be too small to make much of a difference

 

[KYRON45]

As noted previously in this thread - charm person only works on Humanoids, so it will not work on goblinoids anymore.

Isn’t that what charm monster is for though?

 

[dave2008]

yes, that was what I was wondering, if that included tail or wing. Personally I’d prefer different attacks for these, I understand it bloats the stat block, but it makes sense for these to not all have the same effect

I think it works for some creatures, but dragons are one of those creatures I feel need more unique and interesting options. So my dragons will never adopt the current strategy (though there is a lot I do like about the new dragon design we have seen).

 

[dave2008]

Isn’t that what charm monster is for though?

Sure, but it is a higher level spell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The bugbear lost the Brute trait cause it was just words to say why it's attack did more damage, when they can just make the bugbear do more damage.

So the why no longer matters? If they're going to outside the expected math, shouldn't an in-setting explanation be provided? Or from a game perspective, should that be called out for GMs who might want to design their own version?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The stone golem: Again, not a huge fan of adding abilities that have never been there. And in this case, adding a ranged attack means it's harder for pcs to make meaningful tactical choices to make an encounter easier to manage.

That said, there's a right way to do it. This isn't quite on the mark for me.

In my opinion, the thing to do when adding a ranged attack to a melee brute is to make it less effective than its melee attacks. One point less on its attack bonus is a good start, but it shouldn't do more damage than its slam attack- it should do less. I get that they're trying to alleviate the issue of kiting, but how often should you encounter a stone golem in a huge open field where you can just keep backing up away from it? Also, that's why it has the ability to cast slow in the first place.

If I was redesigning the stone golem with an eye toward giving it a ranged attack, I'd probably go with some sort of ranged rock spitting ability- maybe even a cone. Something with an attack bonus of around +6 or +7 (assuming its melee bonus was still +10), and with an average damage of around 16-18 points. Maybe slightly less but with multiple targets. And probably with a shorter range.

Man, I feel like a stodgy old fogy who is all critical all the time in this thread. But I really feel like they're reducing the impact of tactical choices for pcs. Again, "I remember this one adventure..." time.... I remember a 1e adventure I ran where low-level pcs had to deal with a stone golem by evading it, keeping their distance, and cleverly leading it around its lair while one pc accomplished their actual goal instead of fighting it. That's just not possible when it can do ranged attacks at 90'. I like encounters where you have to think outside the box.

Perhaps they feel sacrificing tactical choice and planning is worth gaining simplicity (oh, I'm sorry, "stream-lining") and "cinematic coolness"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Interesting, I see it completely the opposite. IMO, it can encourage innovation in both the DM and monster designer.

How is using the same mechanics for multiple things in-setting innovative?