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

[Yaarel]

@Yaarel: The new MM defines Monstrosities as "unnatural creatures with strange origins, such as mimics and owlbears." That's it.

Well, Humans have strange (cosmically rare) origins.

If I create a Beast using the True Polymorph spell, that would be an "unnatural strange origin", yet it is a normal natural Beast.

The listed definition is a nondefinition.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree. If you are interested I can provide more detail.

Please.

I wpuld assume you prefer the certainty and how it interacts with the math (maybe we have discussed this before?) But I don't want to put words in your... er, fingers I guess

 

[Kobold Stew]

Are the NPC stat blocks really just sorted into the general monster list and not in a separate appendix? That's going to make a lot of needless searching.

Now that I have a copy and have spent 2 hours with it, I'll say I don't think this is the case. The humanoids are included alphabetically with the other monsters, and they are listed in an almost-index at the back of the book.

By including them they aren't "called out" as being not-really-monsters, and that's (indirectly) been the major subject of the last 41 pages. In the same way that we don't pull out the good monsters from the easy-to-justify-killing ones, I think it's right that we don't separate the scouts, the toughs, and the cultists from the other monsters.

They do, however, pull out the Beasts as an appendix. And that is brilliant, I think, for making druid play more straightforward (not simple, but removing a major obstacle).

 

[Yaarel]

They do, however, pull out the Beasts as an appendix. And that is brilliant, I think, for making druid play more straightforward (not simple, but removing a major obstacle).

Heh, tho I think they separated out the Beasts, lest the all the pet lovers freak.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Heh, tho I think they separated out the Beasts, lest the all the pet lovers freak.

I believe the beasts have always been separated out in 5e.

 

[Yaarel]

I believe the beasts have always been separated out in 5e.

(For the same reason.)

 

[dave2008]

Please.

I wpuld assume you prefer the certainty and how it interacts with the math (maybe we have discussed this before?) But I don't want to put words in your... er, fingers I guess

Actually that is not it, but that is a good guess given my history.

I like X/Rest because it is a narrative the makes sense to me. Needing to rest implies the ability takes something from you (stamina, magical energy, etc.) that you then need to recover in some manner (by resting). A Recharge is the same narrative idea in theory, but the randomness and undetermined nature of the method of the recovery undermines that narrative for me a bit.

To be clear, this is not a big deal to me, I use both and think they both have their place.

Also, there is a gamist reason. I don't want to roll a bunch of recharge dice!

 

[Kobold Stew]

I believe the beasts have always been separated out in 5e.

Not quite --

in the MM 2014, some beasts were in an appendix (along with some plants, and blink dogs), and some beasts were mixed in with main monsters (e.g. dinosaurs).

Now, I think, we have an appendix that Druid players can look at, without any real searching.

 

[dave2008]

Heh, tho I think they separated out the Beasts, lest the all the pet lovers freak.

What do you mean by this? I am not following your thought here, can you clarify?

 

[Yaarel]

What do you mean by this? I am not following your thought here, can you clarify?

If Beasts are "monsters", the player characters would go around "killing puppies".

It relates to sensitivity about whether a Familiar can be killed, but expands to include any "innocent" animal.