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

[FitzTheRuke]

Tough doesn't work that well for me. I get they were going for "a tough" but it is not a term I typically think of and my first thought is just "tough" as a description and with even the x2 hp for Cr 1/2 is still CR 1/2 and eventually not that tough when looking at the range of NPC names. Tough does not flow well when I read it in these discussions. A gnomish tough just does not sound as good to my ear as a gnomish thug when I think of a little mugger.

I can see them avoiding any hint of racial association disparagement but my personal image conception of a D&D thug is not racially associated and I get that can be different for others. Heavy might have worked better for me if they wanted to change it but tough just does not do it for me asethetically.

I agree that it took me a moment to be able to read "tough" as a noun. (Though heavy has the same issue of being a adjective first). But I probably won't use any of those name in-game anyhow. I'll call 'em something more individually descriptive in an actual game. Maybe even by name!

 

[TwoSix]

I am not mad, I am just disagreeing with their decision. It’s easy enough to ignore to be essentially irrelevant

That I 100% agree with.

 

[Voadam]

Changing types based on captstone mastery of specific mysticism paths dates pretty much back to 3.0 with the elemental savant prestige class turning the elementalist specialist into an elemental and the monk class turning into a (presumably enlightened) outsider.

It is a bit weird to have the only unique entries for humanoids be the very specific nonstandard nonhumanoid ones like the Lizardfolk geomancer and sovereign and no Eye of Gruumsh or Drow Lolth priestess.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Changing types based on captstone mastery of specific mysticism paths dates pretty much back to 3.0 with the elemental savant prestige class turning the elementalist specialist into an elemental and the monk class turning into a (presumably enlightened) outsider.

It is a bit weird to have the only unique entries for humanoids be the very specific nonstandard nonhumanoid ones like the Lizardfolk geomancer and sovereign and no Eye of Gruumsh or Drow Lolth priestess.

I find it weird that the conversion guide suggests Berserker (IIRC) for an Eye of Grumsh. I would have imagined them more as a Cultist Fanatic or something.

The Lloth Priestess, they suggest a Fiend(?) Cultist, which probably works fine. In fact, it might be really similar - I have yet to compare them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's your right, of course; you don't have to buy the book. I'm not buying the book either!

It's the inability to recontexualize the role and narratives of the entries in the book that I find irritating.

If a rule change requires you to change your internal narrative as to how the monster operates, then just change your internal narrative! If you absolutely can't, then house rule the monster.

Being mad that a piece of media doesn't fit your internal preconceptions is the worst part of fandom today.

Changing the media without making it a new edition is irritating and to me feels disingenuous.

 

[Yaarel]

I find it weird that the conversion guide suggests Berserker (IIRC) for an Eye of Grumsh. I would have imagined them more as a Cultist Fanatic or something.

The Lloth Priestess, they suggest a Fiend(?) Cultist, which probably works fine. In fact, it might be really similar - I have yet to compare them.

Is Gruumsh not a "Fiend"?

 

[Voadam]

Is Gruumsh not a "Fiend"?

No, evil gods are different categories with some similarities.

 

[TwoSix]

Changing the media without making it a new edition is irritating and to me feels disingenuous.

I, too, wish it had been a new edition.

 

[TwoSix]

No, evil gods are different categories with some similarities.

Gruumsh is actually now a Fey.

 

[Yaarel]

No, evil gods are different categories with some similarities.

Heh, I will continue referring to these Astrals as Celestials and Fiends, respectively, depending on their alignment.