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

[Micah Sweet]

That's what I was thinking when I saw the conversion chart honsestly. I didn't know how much HP the Tough had (still don't know the exact number) but I used the 5e Thug a lot so I know it has 32 average HP compared to the average 15 the standard Orc had.

More than doubling the base HP of Orc encounters from the 2014 rules is probably going to cause some low level parties undue grief.

But I thought the whole point of backwards compatibility from WotC's perspective was to maintain rules continuity with the published adventures they still want to sell us?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Why split them up? Why have some lizardfolk be elementals at all? What benefit does it provide?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

A weak justification doesn't really explain it. It's a silly change.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A weak justification doesn't really explain it. It's a silly change.

So... it boils down to: you don't like the change so it must be silly?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 miss "magical beast". Think I'll bring that back.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 miss "magical beast". Think I'll bring that back.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Double post.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's what I was thinking when I saw the conversion chart honsestly. I didn't know how much HP the Tough had (still don't know the exact number) but I used the 5e Thug a lot so I know it has 32 average HP compared to the average 15 the standard Orc had.

More than doubling the base HP of Orc encounters from the 2014 rules is probably going to cause some low level parties undue grief.

I always hated the thug stat block. I really don't like CR 1/2 with that much HP.
The dire wolf made me hopeful, that the reduced HP on low CR creatures.

The dire wolf statblock made me hopeful that they reduced them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 miss "magical beast". Think I'll bring that back.

True, but if Lizardfolk are going to be elementals, I like the idea of them being connected to a D&D equivalent of The Green.

But why are they elementals? What purpose does it serve?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is one of the things that really bugs me. Pcs now have no way of knowing if things like charm person, PfGaE, etc will be effective against a given lizardfolk or goblin- and there's no way to really learn, since the answer by RAW is "sometimes it will and sometimes it won't".

This is, in my opinion, a very poorly thought out change. The massive number of re-typings of monsters has consequences that basically suck for players (assuming the DM isn't going to metaknowledge handwave this kind of stuff- which is a whole 'nother kind of dissatisfying).

That's because the change was likely not made for game purposes.