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

[SkidAce]

Again, the specific lore question being asked in regards to keen senses is "why is this dog really good at noticing things" which... the entire reason that dogs exist and live with us is because they are good at noticing things.

Actually I was using the dog as a simple and clear example of my point. Don't get hung up on the dog.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There were a ton of retcons in 4e Eberron that did not make it to 5e because the fanbase didn't like them (Baator, trying to organize the Orrery cosmology like the World Axis, anyone being allowed to gain Dragonmarks, etc). There are some retcons that did survive 4e Eberron, because the fanbase did like them (Dragonborn, Feyspires). There have been retcons in 5e that the fanbase embraced because of how cool they are (Daelkyr Dwarves, Warforged Collosi, Cyre 1313 and Dread Metrol). It's not that Eberron fans like retcons. It's that they like good retcons. Which I think I can say is true about most D&D players.

Like, take the new Goliaths. Goliaths up until the new PHB were always connected with specifically stone giants, not any of the other subtypes. But the new version introduces 5 new "subraces," one for each of the main 6 giant types. Which is, you know, a retcon. They changed the race's lore and mechanics without a metaplot justification and people accepted it. Because, guess what, most people think giants are pretty cool and having the option to be descended from/connected to any of the main giant types is just a good improvement to the original goliaths. If the average D&D player was as hostile to retcons as you are, they would never have passed the UA because there wasn't a metaplot justification for why Goliaths aren't just descended from Stone Giants now.

I am not saying that Eberron fans are a special group of people that are just more tolerant to retcons than all other D&D players. I'm saying that most D&D players are tolerant to retcons, it's the quality of retcons that determines whether or not people like it, not the fact that it's a retcon. I'm saying that you, for whatever reason, are averse to retcons in a way that most players aren't and you shouldn't assume the rest of the fanbase is as hostile to them as you are.

Fair enough.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that is fair and I am the same except for reading/using them stories (which I don't). However, it is a game and setting material must first and foremost serve the game. The game doesn't need the story you want and it I think you have to admit your desires, though valid, are at the best secondary to the needs of the game.

Granted. That doesn't make them any less important to me, however.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Granted. That doesn't make them any less important to me, however.

So, will you stop making your gripe with WotC over their approach to canon/metaplot our problem anymore? Maybe start your own thread about how you don't like it, so you can talk with other people that did like metaplots? I would prefer if discussions about (checks where this tangent began) the new Bugbear stat block didn't get derailed about how much you hate Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, a 3.5 year old book. Just as a favor, I would prefer not to have this topic in future threads about new books/UA again.

 

[JEB]

So, will you stop making your gripe with WotC over their approach to canon/metaplot our problem anymore? Maybe start your own thread about how you don't like it, so you can talk with other people that did like metaplots? I would prefer if discussions about (checks where this tangent began) the new Bugbear stat block didn't get derailed about how much you hate Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, a 3.5 year old book.

Posters are not required to respond to complaints - by @Micah Sweet or anyone else. Everyone could simply ignore posts they disagree with, and engage only with lines of discussion they prefer. (There are even tools available, if they are literally unable to resist the temptation.)

These derails aren't a problem created by Micah Sweet - this is something each poster is choosing to do. (In this very thread, there are other derails that have nothing to do with Micah's complaints.)

Just as a favor, I would prefer not to have this topic in future threads about new books/UA again.

So your preference would be that no one ever again raise issues with lore changes in future releases? Anything else you personally don't like that we shouldn't speak of again?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Let's get things back on topic, shall we?

The stone golem has gotten a significant upgrade!

2014
View attachment 389156

2024
View attachment 389157

I am pretty sure I have only used Stone Golems a single time. They're one of those monsters that you can't really use until fairly late in the campaign, and once you do your players probably have a lot of powerful options to deal with it. the one time I did (I think in my Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign), they were kind of underwhelming. They don't do great damage, and Eidolons are a more interesting alternative. My party was pretty easily able to take on a good amount of them (I think there were 6? Alongside some Githyanki, too?)

However, I like most of the changes. Slightly higher AC is good. Stone should be tough to damage. More HP is good, since they're moving away from "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" as a concept (which I like). Combining Damage and Condition immunities into a single section is interesting. I'm not sure I like it.

Shape-shift as a new key word is interesting. I wonder what other monsters will use it.

Capitalizing Advantage is interesting, too.

Their Slam now deals 4d8 damage instead of 3d8, which I think is good.

Force bolt as a ranged attack is strange. I get that they're animated by (elemental) spirits and created by arcane spellcasters, so it's not completely unfounded, but I would prefer something like a Throw Boulder attack. Or something like an AOE Earth tremor that deals bludgeoning damage and knocks people prone.

And they probably should have explained the effects of Slow if they are going to have an action that causes it. No need to force the DM to open a new tab/book.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I haven't used golems for a while, but I actually had a design in mind in which they shoot force beams like the giant construct in the end of Nausicaä, so this works for me.

I think to me it is weirder that they cast slow, but I think that is just one of those D&D legacy things that has been like that forever and no one remembers why.

I wish big strong brute creatures like this would have their melee attacks to know ar throw people around.

 

[dave2008]

Granted. That doesn't make them any less important to me, however.

Very true!

 

[dave2008]

However, I like most of the changes. Slightly higher AC is good. Stone should be tough to damage. More HP is good, since they're moving away from "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" as a concept (which I like).

It's HP was significantly raised, like close to a 40% raise in HP IIRC. That was more than I was expecting for sure.

Combining Damage and Condition immunities into a single section is interesting. I'm not sure I like it.

I like it. I made this change earlier this year and I'm happy to see it is official. FYI, in case you missed it, the damage and conditions are separated by a ";"

Shape-shift as a new key word is interesting. I wonder what other monsters will use it.

Yep, it seems there is a general move to key-words in the rules glossary. The fire elemental also causes burning, which is defined in the rules glossary as well (1d4 damage each round).

Capitalizing Advantage is interesting, too.

Yep, and it seems to be a general move to capitalize all game jargon. For example, damage types, hit points, spell names, and more are capitalized now too. This is also a move I started to do earlier this year (I've even been explaining it in an appendix to my homebrews - so I can stop that now I guess), so also happy to it become official

From my "books:"

And they probably should have explained the effects of Slow if they are going to have an action that causes it. No need to force the DM to open a new tab/book.

I have mixed feelings about this move. In general I like explanations in the stat block; however, I would have preferred they take this approach (replace an effect with a spell that does mostly the same thing) with the dragon's Frightful Presence than get rid of it completely. On the other hand, for the golem I would have preferred they just got rid of the ability. Also, if they had kept the "slowed" condition from the 2024 playtest they could have solved this problem.

 

[dave2008]

I haven't used golems for a while, but I actually had a design in mind in which they shoot force beams like the giant construct in the end of Nausicaä, so this works for me.

I think to me it is weirder that they cast slow, but I think that is just one of those D&D legacy things that has been like that forever and no one remembers why.

I wish big strong brute creatures like this would have their melee attacks to know ar throw people around.

My thoughts almost exactly (and I love the Nausicaa reference).