D&D 5E (2024) Monster manual Fey video up

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

View attachment 394016
The bullywug art is charming!

Playable bullywugs when?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The also said they are working on a book with non-humanoid player options too.

Several obvious candidates here:

1. The Forgotten Realms Players Guide
2. Whatever 2026 book the revised Artificer is going to be in

Either way, I suspect we're not going to have to wait too long.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

They generally avoid putting unique NPCs in the Monster Manual. There’s a reason why Orcus, Demogorgon, and the Archfiends are in the Monsters of the Multiverse book instead of the Monster Manual. The Tarrasque is the sole exception in 5e.

In some D&D lore there is a legendary planet of the Tarrasques, a whole planet full of them. And really I figure most worlds have at least 1 Tarrasque.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I use bullywugs to represent Everquest's Frogloks.

Likely thats where Everquest took them from anyway.

Norrath is a very thinly disguised home D&D campaign for large parts of it. (Other stuff, like Qeynos, was created wholesale for the MMO -- spell the city's name backwards to see.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Fantasy is supposed to be fantastical. Would you be mad if your GM homebrewed every monster?

Speaking as that GM, I'd be mad if people didn't chip in for pizza (or, for remote play, D&D Beyond subscription fees/books).

 

[I'm A Banana]

The PC species thing is in a bit of a weird limbo, I think.

On the one hand, there are already species in 5e who are humanoids whose monster versions in the MM are not going to be humanoids. Crawford mentioned Gith specifically. And then he gives a bit of a fictional band-aid over it ("lost their other type") that is...less than satisfying from my perspective. Like, OK, sure, retcon that however you need.

On the other hand, there's no mechanical need to limit PC types to "humanoid." Constructs, fey, oozes (plasmoids) whatever, your type doesn't need to be "humanoid" for you to be a PC. So you can have aberration Gith who are still PC-relevant. It's just that none of the gith in the MM are like that - the MM entries are not meant to be used as player species. Hypothetically, we have some PC options coming down the pipe that are not humanoid being teased here. Great. But then why do we need the first story? Maybe just for all the species we're not really converting yet? For things like elves and aasimar and tieflings?

On the other other hand, there's something kind of exciting about there being species of multiple types. They talked about fey goblins and humanoid goblins and aberration goblins. You could also have construct goblins and fiend goblins (barghest?!) and dragon goblins and elemental goblins. There's something kind of cool about the various stories that encourages. You can imagine a diversity of goblins, from the martial drudgery of the Maglubiyet sect of fiends to the whimsy of the fey tricksters and then you have maybe aberrations for the psionic Blues in addition to those mutated by the Far Realm. Expand that to other creature types and yeah, that allows for some neat things. You can also have humanoid versions of other creatures (gnolls who are less fiendish, but also humanoid versions of dryads or humanoid versions of harpies or whatever) - things that are a little more in line with PC capabilities, regardless of if there's a PC species for them or not.

On the other other OTHER hand, 5.24 is consciously limiting the effects of species on gameplay. They blend them all together in the '24 PHB. Type isn't a big change, but people definitely miss some of the more impactful elements of species in general. So 5.24 could use a way to make your dwarf or elf or tiefling or aasimar or goblin or githzerai truly distinct from other races, humanoid or otherwise. Not something I expect the 5e MM to solve, but maybe something they're thinking of with this foreshadowing of non-humanoid PC's.

 

[humble minion]

For PC species that are fey (or abberation, or anything else) in the MM but humanoid in the PHB: 'When you're a player, you've lost some of your feyness and become humanoid."

That's just garbage, and a dumb, shortsighted, destuctive approach to game design.

So exactly at what point does a goblin PC 'lose their feyness'? Do they notice? Does anyone else notice? If my goblin PC has an NPC identical twin brother who he grew up with, was apprenticed to the same wizardly master to learn magic, etc etc - what happened to cause the 'loss of feyness'.

This is one of those rules design decisions that is destructive to the integrity of the game world. It introduces all sorts of immersion-breaking questions and inconsistencies. If the rules descrive the world poorly, you should be changing the rules, not the world.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This all feels like they realized after the Players Handbook went to the printers that elves and gnomes should have been fey, dragonborn should be dragons, aasimar should have been celestials, tieflings should have been fiends, etc. and the "well, they can be different types" is them slapping a Band-Aid on things.

In any case, I think I have my first house rule for D&D 2024: Your type matches the type in the Monster Manual. If that provides a power-up for some PCs, that's fine; other stuff, like protection from evil, may affect them now as well, typically balancing things out.

 

[Azzy]

That's just garbage, and a dumb, shortsighted, destuctive approach to game design.

This is just more of people equating things they don't like with supposed "bad design" (and its similes). It's a rather BS hot take.

 

[the Jester]

Isn’t the appeal of being a Gith leaning into that alien background and fantastical life experience (see Lae’zel from BG3)? Without that extraplanar background Gith might as well be another type of elf.

Apparently many modern gamers view species options as just packets of abilities, rather than actual alien, nonhuman cultures- "humans with forehead ridges," if you will. I am definitely more of a "let's play up how different the different species are" kind of guy. I like my dwarves to be actually connected to the earth in a way that others aren't, and I like my elves to live for thousands of years and mature after a century or two.

Alas, it seems that "forehead ridge" play is the dominant paradigm, at least from the discussions I've seen here and elsewhere. I have seen the "of course you're going to play them as human, that's all you can do, you are human" argument too many times to count.