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

[Micah Sweet]

Well, they're correcting an error. Giant eagles and the like were Magical Beasts in 3e; when 5e didn't include that monster type, intelligent and communicative animals should've been classified as something other than Beasts.

Then bring magical beast back. I'm all for that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They sure are having a fun time changing words lately;
View attachment 394827

Gotta protect that IP. We might as well be dealing with GW at this point.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Gotta protect that IP. We might as well be dealing with GW at this point.

I have no idea what you’re even talking about at this point.

 

[Seramus]

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.

I would love a category called "Magical" that describes things that have been augmented beyond their origins, but without the baggage of being a Monstrosity. A "Magical" thing can be from any other type, but is somehow more for whatever reason. Giant Eagles, Pegasus, the child of a mortal and a god, or even just a Giant that has caught the salmon of wisdom and become enlightened beyond her peers. "I was this, but now I am so much more."

That does include cursed things where the augmentation is somehow negative.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have no idea what you’re even talking about at this point.

Games Workshop made a large number of changes to their various IPs specifically to protect them from being used by other companies, unpending decades of terminology. I see a possible similarly here.

 

[Minigiant]

I understand what they are doing, and it is reasonable in a way.

But why make a square peg fit into a round hole? Giant beasts now celestials? What do the druids have to say about this?

Really, I'm not hung up on it, I've been through every change since the Red Box and 1st Ed. I can adapt.


Makes me scratch my head sometimes though...

Like @occam stated, it's the loss of magical beast.

Magical beast is too narrow a creature type to keep.


The Giant Eagle and Giant Elk are too intelligent to be called beasts. They aren't just big animals.

So either they become celestial, fey, or monstrosity.

The question

Will the evil Giant Vulture be turned into a fiend?

 

[Minigiant]

Then bring magical beast back. I'm all for that.

No

Magical beast is too narrow for inclusion.

Especially with unicorns and Pegasi leaving it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like @occam stated, it's the loss of magical beast.

Magical beast is too narrow a creature type to keep.


The Giant Eagle and Giant Elk are too intelligent to be called beasts. They aren't just big animals.

So either they become celestial, fey, or monstrosity.

The question

Will the evil Giant Vulture be turned into a fiend?

I don't agree about magical beast as a category. Plenty of creatures could easily be categorized that way. WotC chose not to because they wanted to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No

Magical beast is too narrow for inclusion.

Especially with unicorns and Pegasi leaving it.

Put them back. They should never have left IMO.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't agree about magical beast as a category. Plenty of creatures could easily be categorized that way. WotC chose not to because they wanted to.

Put them back. They should never have left IMO.

Nah.

The problem is that Monstrosity now exists.

Monstrosity consumed Monstrous humanoid and Magical beast for all general monsters without a definitive celestial, fiendish, fey, or far realm link.

The issue became that now "monsters" that weren't "monstrous" don't really fit in "monstrosity".

A Pegasus isn't a "monster".
A unicorn is not a "monster".

There aren't enough "It's an animal but magic" In general D&D to warrant clean them out of monstrosity and creating a separate magical beast type for them.

So pretty much the "pretty monsters" are being pulled out of monstrosity and turned into celestials.