D&D General The Revised Monster Manual was released 1 year ago today! How have you liked facing down and using the new monsters?

Sulicius said:

That information will differ per campaign. Also, IMO it is metagaming to use the MM to optimize your character.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will differ by campaign. However, having a basic idea of what damage types are most common is helpful. it is not metagaming to realize that fire and poison are relatively common, hence resistance to those would be more beneficial than say resistance to acid or lightning. Now if the campaign setting is somewhere cold, then it may well make sense to have resistance to cold. Again, this should be common knowledge in the campaign setting.

Had a fun combat last night with some 2024 ochre jellies vs. a Level 4 party. The jellies have more HP and are also a bit faster (10 -> 20 ft) than their 2014 version. They can now use Split upon becoming Bloodied, and not just when hit with Slashing/Lightning damage. My players don't have Slashing/Lightning so if the change hadn't been made, they would have never known.

My players were laughing at the itty bitty jellies running around, and screaming when they found out the bitties deal the exact same amount of damage as the original jelly.

I also like the ochre jelly's new art, which showcases the Split reaction described above.

A little thing I like that I don't think I've seen anyone mention much is that, although the flavour text has been pared back in almost all cases, what is there is very often presented as a set of possible origins rather than a definite backstory. Sometimes it's quite explicit (the medusa has a random table for it!) other times it's just kind of ambiguous so that you're subtly encouraged to fit the monster to your campaign world.

You could obviously always do that, but I feel like the descriptions in the '14 MM specifically had to be reworked if you're were playing in a world that deviated significantly from Greyhawk or the Realms. Like, almost none of them applied to Eberron in any meaningful sense, which meant every Eberron book continued the long tradition of devoting most of its page count to explaining the ways every monster is different there. I know the official justification for why Forge of the Artificer is a mini-supplement is that RFTLW remains the official setting book, but I think it's at least partially because the flavour in the core books no longer contradicts Eberron's assumptions so comprehensively.

I have been using the book for a while in both my 5e2024 campaign and in one of my 5e2014 campaigns. I like the extra challenge provided by the new monsters. I had similar initial reactions to others here in terms of the organizational changes and the absence of custom NPC statblocks for various PC-race monsters, but I've gotten used to it. It is a bit annoying to have to expend time to build an orc warrior or a dwarf veteran but I can see why they went that way; if they had kept orc NPCs in the MM, to give one example that has been frequently cited here, people would be complaining that goliaths or other species didn't get the same treatment.

I agree that the additional high-CR monsters are a solid addition; when this book came out I was running a high-level campaign and almost every single monster I was using had been heavily customized, since my group of 6 L16-17 characters could blast through most of the creatures in the 2014 MM with ease. I haven't gotten a chance to use the new top-tier monsters in the 2024 MM yet but I'm looking forward to doing so. I did use a 2024 adult black dragon in my most recent game session (with 6 8th level 5e2014 player characters), and I thought the new options added a lot to the encounter. The dragon's new spellcasting and legendary actions allowed it to do things like harass spellcasters who remained in the back ranks, and the new fear option (as a legendary action) ended up being much more impactful than the 2014 version. There are numerous monsters where they've streamlined their action economy to allow the monster to use more of its abilities in an encounter, such as the cloaker.

Finally, I like the small bumps added to the lower-level humanoids, the better to keep pace with the bumped 5e 2024 player characters. Giving goblins a damage boost when attacking from advantage helps incentivize the strategy they were designed for, i.e., hit and run attacks and ambushes. Similarly, replacing the hobgoblin's Martial Advantage with Pack Tactics (while boosting their base damage), means that they are more likely to land attacks and makes a phalanx of them very dangerous to even mid-range PCs, which fits well with their conceptualization as disciplined warriors. Other basic humanoids like gnolls and bugbears got a few more hit points, which helps them take that extra damage that 2024 PCs can dish out.

Clint_L said:

Caveat: I run the MM through DDB, so while I acknowledge some weird organization choices in the physical edition, which I also own for reading purposes, these aren't a factor in how I use the new MM.

Click to expand...

This. I don't own the physical copies of the 5.5e core books. I'm still waiting for a boxed set.

For the most part, I think the new monsters are an improvement. I'm fine with removing saving throws. I like that all Legendary Actions just require 1 action. I don't really care about male hags or medusae. I'm also fine with removing generic stats for PC-facing species like orcs and drow.

If I was relying on a physical copy of the MM, I think I would find the new organization highly annoying. They really should have stuck with grouping all themed creatures together instead of just some of them, and they most definitely should have put all the generic NPCs in an appendix in the back like they did in the 2014 MM.

Something else I don't like, which I complained about recently elsewhere on EN World, is the inconsistent editing in this book. It's obvious that different people wrote different entries in the book and then no one went through and edited for consistency. So you've got dragons that "use Spellcasting to cast X" while other creatures "cast Y, using the same spellcasting ability as Spellcasting". You've got a ghast that can affect "a non-Undead creature" while the ghast gravecaller can affect a target that "isn't Undead" with the same ability. The book really needed another editing pass.

Clint_L said:

Spellcasters SUCK. This is a change that began with Monsters of the Multiverse: primary casters now just get a handful of spells instead of full lists, including creatures such as liches and archmages. I HATE this change! It makes them way more predictable in combat. I understand that it makes running them easier for novices, but most DMs know the rules and aren't bothered by having multiple spell options to choose from. Fortunately, DDB makes it easy for me to just use the legacy versions of spellcasters in most cases.

Click to expand...

This. I strongly dislike the NPC spellcaster format introduced in MotM. I get why they did it, but I don't like it. It's fine for monsters with innate spells, but NPCs that are meant to be clerics, wizards, etc should use the same mechanics as PCs. They should not be firing off multiple "cantrips" a round, for instance.

Also, why do we pretty much only ever get cleric, wizard, and warlock NPCs with a token druid? The new Bandit Deceiver is an arcane trickster, but where's the eldritch knight NPC? Where's the bladesinger wizard NPC? Where are the sorcerers (outside of PotA)? Eberron: Forge of the Artificer finally gave us an NPC artificer.

On that note, why do we only ever get a berserker barbarian NPC? Where are the wild heart, world tree, and zealot barbarians? Where's the skald (valor) bard NPC? Why did we only ever get a War Domain cleric NPC? What about all the other domains? How about a shape-shifting focused druid NPC? How about a battle master fighter NPC? Why don't we ever get any ranger NPCs? And so on and so forth.

Clint_L said:

I also dislike that fantasy staples like elves and orcs aren't individually represented. Yes, I know that you can use statblocks like "guard" for any of them, but that takes away a lot of flavour. How hard would it have been to have one or two representatives of those classic archetypes, with a special ability or two to make them distinct? Orc warrior, Elf scout, etc. This is made more strange by the fact that some other classic species are represented this way.

Click to expand...

Dude, you still had to do that with the NPCs in the 2014 MM. Yeah, sure, there were some specific orcs and drow etc, but if you wanted an orc bandit or a drow thug, you still had to take the generic, human-default NPCs and customize them.

Lazybones said:

It is a bit annoying to have to expend time to build an orc warrior or a dwarf veteran but I can see why they went that way; if they had kept orc NPCs in the MM, to give one example that has been frequently cited here, people would be complaining that goliaths or other species didn't get the same treatment.

Click to expand...

I mean, you would have had to expend time building a dwarf veteran even with the 2014 MM, so ...

Sulicius said:

I think I am getting a bit tired of seeing people say the same things without it sounding like they played with any of the stat blocks. A lot of “bought it, but I did not use it”

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, you're being all Sam-I-Am, trying to convince people that they'll like green eggs and ham if they just give them a try. LOL.

pukunui said:

Meanwhile, you're being all Sam-I-Am, trying to convince people that they'll like green eggs and ham if they just give them a try. LOL.

Click to expand...

Don’t be like that. The title AND my first post ask for experiences using the book.

I can find useless comments hating on the revised book whenever I want.

Sulicius said:

Don’t be like that. The title AND my first post ask for experiences using the book.

I can find useless comments hating on the revised book whenever I want.

Click to expand...

Asking people for their experiences using the new monsters is one thing. Repeatedly telling people who haven't used them to give them a try because they just might like them is another. Besides, I was just being silly - hence the children's book reference.

pukunui said:

Asking people for their experiences using the new monsters is one thing. Repeatedly telling people who haven't used them to give them a try because they just might like them is another. Besides, I was just being silly - hence the children's book reference.

Click to expand...

Clearly you can ask people for their experience eating green egg and ham after they actually tried it, you know.