D&D (2024) New Celestials | 2024 Monster Manual | D&D

[dave2008]

The Solar is jacked. The idealized form, the beauty of the human form. I'm not sure what you need clarified. I'm not looking for art of 'realistic' bodies. I'm looking for art of something to aspire to, to inspire.

I wasn't sure of what idealized form you were speaking of. I can see it being much more abstract.

 

[dave2008]

When did he say that. It certainly wasn't in 3.5.

Goodness, he clarified that shortly after Eberron 5e came out. It was commented on and linked to in these forums. He said (I'm paraphrasing here): In 3.5e all settings were part of the D&D multiverse and so was Eberron.

 

[dave2008]

Right, I’m 100% onboard with sapient animals not being classified as beasts. I’m just not sold on celestial being the right alternative. Again, the Giant type exists, and I think would be a better home for these sapient animals, since all of them are, in fact, giant.

But they don't all need to be Giant do they?

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Obviously it doesn’t just mean that’s a big bird, because a big bird wouldn’t be able to talk.

I mean, sure, clearly they want the giant eagle (for example) to be something more than just a beast - that's the entire point behind making this change.

What I'm getting at is, putting the giant eagle into the Giant creature category has lore implications that they may not have wanted to make. As a particularly relevant example, the giant goose in Bigby's Glory of the Giants, which has an INT of 6 (compared to the giant eagle's 8), is not itself a Giant, but is instead a type of Fey.

Just because it's big enough to be described as "giant" doesn't mean they want it to count as a "Giant".

 

[Charlaquin]

But they don't all need to be Giant do they?

Well, they all happen to be giant (lower-case g), so Giant (upper-case G) seems like a good fit. If we later get talking animals that are not giant, we would probably want to categorize them differently. But I see no reason all talking animals would need to belong to the same category.

 

[Kurotowa]

Just because it's big enough to be described as "giant" doesn't mean they want it to count as a "Giant".

Exactly. D&D defines "Giants" as being related to a specific family of entities, and usually with an elemental alignment of some sort. It isn't a catch-all for "anything big".

I can see the reasoning for the choice they made. If you want to define large sapient animals as paragon spirits of some sort, then using the existing 5e creature types it's pretty much either Celestial or Fey. And both come with implications. If they had to decide which side of the coin to land on, probably the need to fill out the Celestial ranks a bit was a tie breaker.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, sure, clearly they want the giant eagle (for example) to be something more than just a beast - that's the entire point behind making this change.

What I'm getting at is, putting the giant eagle into the Giant creature category has lore implications that they may not have wanted to make. As a particularly relevant example, the giant goose in Bigby's Glory of the Giants, which has an INT of 6 (compared to the giant eagle's 8), is not itself a Giant, but is instead a type of Fey.

Just because it's big enough to be described as "giant" doesn't mean they want it to count as a "Giant".

Any category they put it in has lore implications. I’m arguing that I find the implications of the Giant category more compelling than those of the Celestial category for these creatures.

 

[Chaltab]

Is it just me or does WOTC seem allergic to the word Aasimon?

 

[dave2008]

Any category they put it in has lore implications. I’m arguing that I find the implications of the Giant category more compelling than those of the Celestial category for these creatures.

That is why I don't like them in the Giant type. The lore of "Giants" in D&D does not include oversized animals IMO. It is specifically about "true" giants and there relatives. Honestly, I don't like D&D trolls as Giants either (though folklore / mythological trolls fit just fine).

 

[dave2008]

Is it just me or does WOTC seem allergic to the word Aasimon?

Not sure, but I'm not fond of it.