D&D (2024) I have a Monster Manual. AMA!

[Reynard]

See here (my emphasis):

I mean, that is a fine origin for a particular tribe of atypical lizardfolk, but I generally think the MM should present "regular" versions of creatures first and foremost (and then maybe some variants to show GMs how to do that).

But the choices WotC has made with this version have been baffling me for a while. I am still looking forward to the MM (it is what actually sold me on the revision at all).

ETA: I do look forward to the look on a player's face the first time they try and use Protection from Good and Evil against a lizardman, tho.

 

[mellored]

Like I said, the "Monstrosity" creature type, I dont understand it.

IMO, it just means "doesn't fit anywhere else".

Monstrosity = Miscellaneous.

 

[Yaarel]

IMO, it just means "doesn't fit anywhere else".

Monstrosity = Miscellaneous.

I get that. The difficulty is, every one of these Monstrosity creatures do fit somewhere else.

So far, "it is like reallife but can do magic", is the closest to a definition I can discern.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Emphasis mine.

That is the dumbest thing I have heard with regards to D&D 2024.

It's even worse when you realize troglodyte literally means "cave dweller," yet some random clan of jungle-dwelling lizardfolk has a stronger connection to elemental earth than any troglodyte.

 

[Reynard]

I have a question fro @FitzTheRuke

Have you come across any creatures that have mechanics tied to the bloodied state? I though I read that it was supposed to be a think again, and I am hoping that is actually true.

 

[GarrettKP]

I have a question fro @FitzTheRuke

Have you come across any creatures that have mechanics tied to the bloodied state? I though I read that it was supposed to be a think again, and I am hoping that is actually true.

Some of the previews have shown a few creatures red have ties to Bloodied. I want to say Troll regeneration does, but I can’t remember exactly.

 

[Chaltab]

I get that. The difficulty is, every one of these Monstrosity creatures do fit somewhere else.

So far, "it is like reallife but can do magic", is the closest to a definition I can discern.

So what is a harpy exactly? It's certainly not an ooze. It's not a celestial, dragon, or construct. It could be a fiend or a fey theoretically though that's never been part of their lore. It's too intelligent to a beast, too Medium to be a giant. I suppose it could be an elemental but unlike Aarakocra, harpies have no traditional connection to the elemental planes. What about a manticore? More intelligent than a beast, with vaguely human facial features mixed with a hodge podge of animals. What about a Chimeara, which is literally a bunch of animals stuck together?

A catch-all category is kind of necessary because some monsters are just random mythological creatures that grew out of folklore and bear no nods at all towards taxonomy. And it replaces the 'magical beast' category from 3E and 4E so it's ultimately just a renamed category that's been in the game for 25+ years.

 

[pukunui]

I mean, that is a fine origin for a particular tribe of atypical lizardfolk, but I generally think the MM should present "regular" versions of creatures first and foremost (and then maybe some variants to show GMs how to do that).

But the choices WotC has made with this version have been baffling me for a while. I am still looking forward to the MM (it is what actually sold me on the revision at all).

ETA: I do look forward to the look on a player's face the first time they try and use Protection from Good and Evil against a lizardman, tho.

I really don't see what the problem is. If your PCs encounter a lizardfolk tribe in the jungle, they'll find that the majority of its inhabitants are humanoids susceptible to things like hold person, charm person, and the like. But the tribe's spiritual leader (geomancer) and civil leader (sovereign) have been magically reshaped by their environment (or by a deliberate ritual) and are not susceptible.

It's even worse when you realize troglodyte literally means "cave dweller," yet some random clan of jungle-dwelling lizardfolk has a stronger connection to elemental earth than any troglodyte.

If 5e kept with 4e's stocky, stony troglodytes, I could see them being elementals. But I'm fine with the 5e versions not being elementals.

I think the real problem here is that D&D has no "elemental (swamp)" or "elemental (jungle)" category. I suppose you could have Lizardfolk be Elemental (earth, water) instead, but that's kinda clunky.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

The dumb part is how the swamp dwelling amphibious lizardmen are connected to Earth.

I wonder if the person that came up with this is a big Swamp Thing fan.

 

[Yaarel]

So what is a harpy exactly? It's certainly not an ooze. It's not a celestial, dragon, or construct. It could be a fiend or a fey theoretically though that's never been part of their lore. It's too intelligent to a beast, too Medium to be a giant. I suppose it could be an elemental but unlike Aarakocra, harpies have no traditional connection to the elemental planes. What about a manticore? More intelligent than a beast, with vaguely human facial features mixed with a hodge podge of animals. What about a Chimeara, which is literally a bunch of animals stuck together?

A catch-all category is kind of necessary because some monsters are just random mythological creatures that grew out of folklore and bear no nods at all towards taxonomy. And it replaces the 'magical beast' category from 3E and 4E so it's ultimately just a renamed category that's been in the game for 25+ years.

I would assign Harpy to the same place as Dryad, thus Fey, or go with a more Greekesque Celestial for both.