D&D (2024) Have You Pre-Ordered The 2024 MM?

[Chaltab]

How to slim it down becomes a matter of priorities – e.g. most 5e players would prioritize its combat abilities and probably say "most of the Vampire Weaknesses could probably just be in the flavor text", whereas I'd prefer to see more cut from the combat part of the monster. But it would probably be a universal improvement for Spider Climb to be moved to the Speed line of the stat block.

That is one change I make when formatting monsters; it's insane to me that an obtuse descriptor like Fly (Hover)* is thrown into stat blocks without explanation but something as obvious as Spider-Climb isn't just put after a Climb speed.

*The problem with Fly (Hover) being that any monster with a Flying speed can hover in 5E, even when it makes no sense like birds of prey. The Hover modifier means that the creature can continue to hover when incapacitated.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

*The problem with Fly (Hover) being that any monster with a Flying speed can hover in 5E, even when it makes no sense like birds of prey. The Hover modifier means that the creature can continue to hover when incapacitated.

I believe somewhere in the rules it says that flying creatures that don't have hover MUST move on their turn.

 

[TheSword]

I will probably pre-order later this evening. Thanks for the reminder. Really looking forward to seeing the new book and some updates. Everything that has come out for 2024 has been great so far. Two sessions in as a DM and two sessions in as a player in a different campaign and no complaints.

Big improvement for me that Proficiency Bonus is now part of the Stat Block. Makes it much easier to tinker with and customize monsters.

 

[Quickleaf]

They posted the whole stat block on beyond. You can see it here: Preview the New Stat Block Design

Here is how the are handling shapechange:

At Will: Detect Magic, Guiding Bolt (level 4 version), Shapechange (Beast or Humanoid form only, no Tmeporary Hit Points gained from the spell, and no Concentration or Temporary Hit Points required to maintain the spell)

There’s a few things I like in the new stat blocks but tons that I don’t like. Specifically in regards to the Shapechange qualifying text, I really don’t like it. Because the spell shapechange (a) is a total stat block swap out, and (b) the (2014) spell language is really player facing in a way that doesn’t translate to monsters 1:1 - “you retain the benefits of your class, race, or other source…you can’t use special senses…” Instead of it being bad at the level of having to check the PHB, now it’s introduced a second stopping point of then incorporating the exceptions text in the MM.

If they’re designing a game intended for experienced players who are assumed to know the gist of how the shapechange spell works, that’s a design choice that at least has a rationale. With the new “edition” being marketed for newer folks, and most campaigns not seeing 9th level spells ever get used (acc to Hasbro’s own data), it seems like the wrong move.

Also… You mention shapechange as a non-combat spell. Thing is that line between combat/non-combat gets blurred when there’s a shapechanging enemy. One can become the other real quick, and now I’m scrambling to figure out the spell text (and the qualifying text) as my players have rolled initiative and are waiting for me.

I would actually consider streamlining any switcheroo powers (stealth is another example) as of special importance for gameplay.

I guess I don't understand how this discussion of paradigm shifts relates to analysis paralysis. They seem to be separate issues to me.

Here’s how: Analysis paralysis comes from assessing a suite of too many choices that are codified. At least for me, when I’m operating from “pure” imagination, there are no options I’m weighing in that way. I just implement without hesitation or comparison. It’s a different process.

I generally like a somewhat standardized format, but I am not against the change to green slime. However, maintaining a consistent format doesn't mean you can't include useful information (carrying capacity, over land travel, etc.). I think what I would like more people to embrace is the idea that monster is not just a stat block. For me, the monster entry and stat block work together (ideally). I will say the 2024 MM seems to be using more that way (like A5e and others have too).

I am curious why despite preferring standardized stats, you were content with the green slime change? That’s a big change ( at the design paradigm level). What about that worked for you? And why would that not work for other monsters like a unicorn, or shrieker, or what have you?

Love the Brotherhood of the Wolf and Jessica Jones references!

Yeah, Brotherhood of the Wolf (and Witcher) were huge influences on me when I was GMing 4e. Silly movie, but lots of fun, good acting, and knocks it out of the park with atmosphere.

I am able to and have run monsters without a stat block. I just us the improv tools from the DMG. In fact I do it quit a lot.

However, that is not how I like to design a monster. As I mentioned before I don't like to / am somewhat uncomfortable designing monsters for a game. I like that a stat block / monster entry is a tool to express a creature in a fictional world. I enjoy that, probably more than anything else in D&D, and it is more important than making it easy to DM. I can DM / run a monster anyway I want regardless of the stat block. However, I want the stat block to tell a story of the world. For me, monster design exists beyond its use at the table. I am not saying that is good, or what an RPG company should do. I am just saying that is what I like to do, what I want when I design a monster.

Really just trying to explain that while an understand your broad approach to the function of monsters / monster stat blocks, it is not something I am ever likely to embrace. Some giant monsters are probably easier to run as a "dungeon," but that is just not a monster design that interests me.

Yeah, I think you’re describing the argument for simulationism, at least applied to monster stats. That’s been the D&D way as long as monster manuals have been published.

Hopefully I’ve communicated what for me are the downsides of adhering completely to that approach to monsters.

But your view is valid, actually it’s more than valid because you definitely describe the majority view by a huuuge margin. Most conversations I have with GMs about monster design can’t even touch on these finer points because the conversation is ONLY happening within that simulation-focused bandwidth (maths, combat powers, how this monster compares to that monster, and so forth).

 

[Nikosandros]

I pre-ordered the alternate cover (as with the PHB and the DMG) and I got the bundle on DDB. I still haven't done much with the 2024 rules except reading them, as the 2014 campaign I'm playing in is advancing at a glacial pace and I've hadn't had a chance to play or ran a one-shot with the new rules.

 

[dave2008]

Specifically in regards to the Shapechange qualifying text, I really don’t like it.

Good, that is what I thought you would think, and I agree. I see this as WotC attempt to simplify the stat block (which you seemed to advocate), but in the process making it harder run at the table. I preferred the 2014 method where it was all in the stat block, but my ideal would be this is a description in the monster entry and not in the stat block at all.

The reason I brought this up is that simplification done poorly can make things worse!

Here’s how: Analysis paralysis comes from assessing a suite of too many choices that are codified. At least for me, when I’m operating from “pure” imagination, there are no options I’m weighing in that way. I just implement without hesitation or comparison. It’s a different process.

OK. That seems very specific to you maybe. I can run stuff like that, but it took me many years to get good at it. I feel a lot of people have a hard time with pure imagination improv. In particular new DMs IME.

I am curious why despite preferring standardized stats, you were content with the green slime change? That’s a big change ( at the design paradigm level). What about that worked for you? And why would that not work for other monsters like a unicorn, or shrieker, or what have you?

It is the nature of the "beast." A green slime doesn't need to do anything. It just exists in an area and it is dangerous. It is like a trap, so making it a hazard instead of monster makes sense to me. A monster needs to be able to move, attack, and defend. So I need to know how it does those things. Now, if I expect a creature to never need those options in combat or another encounter, I have no issue with running that monster differently in that instance. So, if I am going to fight a unicorn, I want its stat block. If I am just getting information from one as a friendly interaction, I don't need a stat block. Stat block's are there for when I need them, and I am free to ignore them when I don't. I don't see a situation where I need a stat block for green slime.

Yeah, I think you’re describing the argument for simulationism, at least applied to monster stats. That’s been the D&D way as long as monster manuals have been published.

Hopefully I’ve communicated what for me are the downsides of adhering completely to that approach to monsters.

I'm not sure. I am not sure I 100% what you really want. What do yo want in a monster book?

I think a monster book can achieve both needs (as I understand them) with useful lore text and a stat block. The lore text informs how to run a monster and would allow you to possibly not even need the stat block. Then the stat block is there for when you need it, with the understanding that it is not a complete simulation of the monster, just a tool the help adjudicate combat. Some of it is being clear what the whole monster entry is and is not.

 

[Quickleaf]

Good, that is what I thought you would think, and I agree. I see this as WotC attempt to simplify the stat block (which you seemed to advocate), but in the process making it harder run at the table. I preferred the 2014 method where it was all in the stat block, but my ideal would be this is a description in the monster entry and not in the stat block at all.

The reason I brought this up is that simplification done poorly can make things worse!

100%, absolutely. Simplification isn’t the end goal, rather ease of use at the table is; that’s the why of simplification. With this change it feels like somebody lost the plot on why they were doing this work.

OK. That seems very specific to you maybe. I can run stuff like that, but it took me many years to get good at it. I feel a lot of people have a hard time with pure imagination improv. In particular new DMs IME.

That’s interesting! I’ve had the reverse experience - newer GMs or GMs from other games I’ve played with in the last 2 years seemed to slip readily into that specific sort of improvisation. Whereas long-term 5e GMs seemed to struggle with that more. That’s just my anecdote N of 1, but since our experiences in that regard are divergent, maybe it’s just an X factor - for some people’s process improv is not natural, whereas for other people it’s more hardwired.

It is the nature of the "beast." A green slime doesn't need to do anything. It just exists in an area and it is dangerous. It is like a trap, so making it a hazard instead of monster makes sense to me. A monster needs to be able to move, attack, and defend. So I need to know how it does those things. Now, if I expect a creature to never need those options in combat or another encounter, I have no issue with running that monster differently in that instance. So, if I am going to fight a unicorn, I want its stat block. If I am just getting information from one as a friendly interaction, I don't need a stat block. Stat block's are there for when I need them, and I am free to ignore them when I don't. I don't see a situation where I need a stat block for green slime.

That makes sense. I included the shrieker fungus as a specific example to see if you’d pick up on its similarity to how a green slime is typically used (stationary “alarm” trap). Or maybe that’s just my interpretation.

I'm not sure. I am not sure I 100% what you really want. What do yo want in a monster book?

I think a monster book can achieve both needs (as I understand them) with useful lore text and a stat block. The lore text informs how to run a monster and would allow you to possibly not even need the stat block. Then the stat block is there for when you need it, with the understanding that it is not a complete simulation of the monster, just a tool the help adjudicate combat. Some of it is being clear what the whole monster entry is and is not.

Yeah, I agree that a monster book balances different needs.

I mean nobody really cares about my ideal monster book, because I’m convinced I’m so far of an outlier to how 5e is generally being played. At this point I suspect my design thinking is too much at odds with what 5e tries to do, that it would no longer be seen as a 5e first (or maybe not even 5e compatible) by most of the fandom.

But a quick example would be the Goblin entry would have a small core stat block, a bunch of roles as modifications to make them more interesting, a goblin boss stat block, there would be track & sign & player knowledge sections, an ecology section, lore section, some random tables (name, quirk, loot), a few phrases in Goblin, a quick bit on their sneaky tactics and pets, and a picture of goblins up to mischief. Nothing revolutionary.

Sphinx entry would have a minimal “stat block” resembling something incredibly small more like an AD&D inline stats, lore of sphinxes, potential mysteries that a sphinx might guard (these would also include something like regional effects/lair actions), then buuunch of riddles & trials for a GM to choose from (maybe with GM advice about how to use sphinxes), random tables (name, gifts), and a picture of a sphinx.

 

[dave2008]

That’s interesting! I’ve had the reverse experience - newer GMs or GMs from other games I’ve played with in the last 2 years seemed to slip readily into that specific sort of improvisation. Whereas long-term 5e GMs seemed to struggle with that more. That’s just my anecdote N of 1, but since our experiences in that regard are divergent, maybe it’s just an X factor - for some people’s process improv is not natural, whereas for other people it’s more hardwired.

That makes sense. Different people have different strengths. I am rather shy and introverted, so it took me a long time to get the hang of improv.

That makes sense. I included the shrieker fungus as a specific example to see if you’d pick up on its similarity to how a green slime is typically used (stationary “alarm” trap). Or maybe that’s just my interpretation.

That shrieker might make sense as a hazard too. I am just not familiar enough with it. I feel like I can recall the image from the 1e MM and that is about it.

But a quick example would be the Goblin entry would have a small core stat block, a bunch of roles as modifications to make them more interesting, a goblin boss stat block, there would be track & sign & player knowledge sections, an ecology section, lore section, some random tables (name, quirk, loot), a few phrases in Goblin, a quick bit on their sneaky tactics and pets, and a picture of goblins up to mischief. Nothing revolutionary.

Sphinx entry would have a minimal “stat block” resembling something incredibly small more like an AD&D inline stats, lore of sphinxes, potential mysteries that a sphinx might guard (these would also include something like regional effects/lair actions), then buuunch of riddles & trials for a GM to choose from (maybe with GM advice about how to use sphinxes), random tables (name, gifts), and a picture of a sphinx.

That sounds pretty awesome (though I am sure I would want more detailed stat blocks than you want - I found the old AD&D in line stat blocks very hard to use - might be my dyslexia, IDK). There are books that cover a lot of what you want (maybe not the stripped down stat block). I only have two issues with this approach:

1. Size. It either has fewer monsters or is over 1,000 pages. Recently I have been think a series of books would be best. There is a MM with 500+ stat blocks jammed in there and little to now lore. Then more targeted books (either monster type or location or something similar) that goes into greater depth with lore and tables and loot and harvesting and a simple stat block(s).
2. OK, in the process of writing out #1 I have completely forgotten what my 2nd point was! If I remember I will get back to you - I've got to do some laundry now!

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I believe somewhere in the rules it says that flying creatures that don't have hover MUST move on their turn.

That is not a rule in 5e. It is not written anywhere to be the case, and there is a tweet from Jeremy Crawford to state the opposite:

x.com

x.com

 

[dave2008]

That is not a rule in 5e. It is not written anywhere to be the case, and there is a tweet from Jeremy Crawford to state the opposite:

x.com

x.com

I think @Paul Farquhar might have it correct, from the rules glossary:

Flying​

A variety of effects allow a creature to fly. While flying, you fall if you have the Incapacitated or Prone condition or your Fly Speed is reduced to 0. You can stay aloft in those circumstances if you can hover. See also “Falling” and “Fly Speed.”

So you can fall if your speed is 0, otherwise know as not moving on your turn.

Falling [Hazard]​

A creature that falls takes 1d6 Bludgeoning damage at the end of the fall for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. When the creature lands, it has the Prone condition unless it avoids taking any damage from the fall.

A creature that falls into water or another liquid can use its Reaction to make a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to hit the surface head or feet first. On a successful check, any damage resulting from the fall is halved.

---

Fly Speed​

A Fly Speed can be used to travel through the air. While you have a Fly Speed, you can stay aloft until you land, fall, or die. See also “Flying” and “Speed.”