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

Of the seven cultists what are the CRs?

I remember the various Warlocks and wizard NPCs from Volos and MotM having a lot of duplicate CRs which kept a bunch of predone spellcaster options to a few CR ranges. Is that repeated here?
Four of them are 8 which is a shame in a way, yeah. Otherwise there's the usual 1/8 Cultist, 2 Fanatic, and a CR10 Heirophant.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

they said that everything stays the same CR, is this true for these kinds of remappings (Orc to Tough etc) true as well or do some of them break?
Yup. Both the Tough (remember: It's the same as the 2014 Thug) and the 2014 Orc are CR 1/2. They have twice as many HP and do roughly half the damage. They'll be less swingy to fight than a 2014 Orc (crits KILL with them) and it might take longer (maybe, the jury's still out on how OP 2024 characters might actually be) but it's roughly the same challenge.

Are there no non-NPC humanoid monsters?
Not that I've seen, no. I think it probably goes against the entire point. Humanoids are "NPC"s. I'm not sure I agree with the approach, but it works for what they're trying to accomplish, for the most part.

Question!

What is the damage of the Ancient Black Dragon's Rend?
Three at +15 for 2d8+8 slashing and 2d8 acid. Seems kinda low to me, but I'd have to see it in practice.

It can replace one with a L4 Acid Arrow.

And do one with a pounce (half-move) as a Legendary Action.
 

I'll be getting my copy in about 20 hours, but before that happens, this is a good summary of where I'm at.

Leaving out the base monsters just seems like such an odd choice if they want the book to be used in play.

(I really hope the book convinces me otherwise).
Like I said, it's starting to grow on me, but I will never see why we can't have both.

Again - I'd rather the other way around. I want some Elf Archers (that I can use as "human" archers if I want) and all the rest. Would that seem like stereotyping? Maybe. IDK.


I love the entries for the ordinary monsters. I like reading the presentation of goblins, orcs, ogres, lizardfolk, kobolds, gnolls -- the basic monsters that I have been fighting since I began to play more than 40 years ago, that have been with me through every edition. How many times have I come across an Otyugh or a Catoblepas? Never. Sure, theyr'e fun to read but they have never affected my play in any way at all.

Goblinoids and gnolls? Tons.
Bad example, as both of those have full write-ups. It's Orcs and Lizardfolk that are left out. Not to mention Goliaths, Dragonborn, Duergar, Svirfneblin, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc.
 

That is sort of like a Duckbill Platypus. It is an odd animal "fusion" but still a natural Beast.

If we found reallife skeletons of a species of snake with wings, it would still be a Beast.

If a bear or a lion evolved feathers (Owlbear, Griffon), it would still be a natural animal.
D&D isn't real life and you can magically cross animals and have them not be natural beasts.
 

Does it say NPC stat blocks are for any/just humanoids? If you want a gnoll scout among the standard gnolls you throw at your party are you houseruling the scout's fiendish type to humanoid or the scout's type to non-fiendish?
 


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.
Not natural is the best explanation. If scientists went to the lab and used science and DNA to create a lion, snake, goat hybrid with the head of each and the body of the lion, nobody is going to call that a natural beast. Monstrosities are the magical equivalent to that.
 



Lizardfolks are elementals now? For the love of all why?
Keep reading. It is the geomancer lizardfolk and sovereign lizardfolk who have bonded to places of primal magic and internalized some of that. Regular base lizardfolk use the humanoid scout NPC stat block.
 

Remove ads

Top