D&D (2024) 2024 MM - Winners and Losers

[Maxperson]

tbh I had no idea about the Jewish implication when I made my OP, I simply thought they were removing phlactery because it was a difficult word, not for any cultural reasons.

Most Jews don't, either, because we don't use the word. Of those of us that do know, the overwhelming number I've seen comment on this said it's not offensive, because we don't use the word.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree, the Jewish item is a teffillin and afaik phylactery is only used once in the bible, and there its in a derogatory sense of 'religious ostentation'.

Phylactery is a greek word for an Amulet or object to safely store an amulet and really outside DnD liches when is it ever used In modern times?

I found some for sale on Etsy. Some were religious. Some were not and were just amulets of various sorts. None that I saw were Tefillin.

 

[Parmandur]

They really aren't. They've been around since 1e and have appeared in multiple settings in pretty much every edition.

Being specific to multiple Settings does not make them non-specific. There are plenty of High Fantasy Settings that do not have them.

I'm not interested in setting books for the most part. Putting setting-agnostic monsters in a setting book as a hook to get me to buy it just makes me resentful. It's a terrible idea; WotC would be better off making a Monster Manual 2 instead.

Monster Manual 2, as well as PHB2 or DMG2, were apparently unmitigated disasters commercially. The approach of using Setting books as PHB/DMG/MM boosters, on the other hand, appear to have been a huge success, since theyvarr doing thst three times this year. Having been doing that for 7 years now.

 

[Clint_L]

I agree, the Jewish item is a teffillin and afaik phylactery is only used once in the bible, and there its in a derogatory sense of 'religious ostentation'.

Phylactery is a greek word for an Amulet or object to safely store an amulet and really outside DnD liches when is it ever used In modern times?

By bible do you mean Torah? And...why go there (using terms from an IRL religion), especially when "soul jar" not only works as well, it works better. I don't have to explain it to players. There's no point in re-litigating it, anyway. It's done.

With regards to losing spell lists, I don't like it but I can always use legacy versions (though not for Vecna, grrrrr....). For me, the new version homogenizes spell casting creatures. If the issue was that liches were pushovers, then it's not an either/or situation: you can make them tougher without getting rid of most of their spell options. WotC is choosing simplification, and while I am often in agreement with that, this is a situation where I want my creature to be more complex.

Also, if you were having a problem keeping a lich alive for more than a round, then I am going to suggest that you were not putting much planning into it. I never worried about a paladin bursting them down in a round. A lich should be an absolute master of its environment and have multiple plans in place. They aren't a creature you drop in for a tank and spank.

 

[Parmandur]

By bible do you mean Torah? And...why go there (using terms from an IRL religion), especially when "soul jar" not only works as well, it works better. I don't have to explain it to players. There's no point in re-litigating it, anyway. It's done.

The term "Phylactery" is used in the Greek of the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus is on an epic rant about demonstrative hypocrisy, and let's just say it has an ugly half-life in Jewish-Christian relations.

Interestingly, I don't think Gygax knew the worf from that, because I checked and the Jehovah's Witness translation does not use "phylactery" the way that traditional English translations do, so I presume he just got it from books secondhand and didn't think much about the history.

Definitely not something Hasbro wants to touch with a ten foot pole.

 

[Tonguez]

By bible do you mean Torah? And...why go there (using terms from an IRL religion), especially when "soul jar" not only works as well, it works better. I don't have to explain it to players. There's no point in re-litigating it, anyway. It's done.

No its not a Hebrew word and is not used in the Torah. It appears once in the New Testament (Gospel of Matthew) and this is where the modern association between Phylactery and Teffilin is derived.
However the word existed in Greek long before that single Biblical instance as a term for a container-amulet. Phylacteries were used in the Holy Lands but also in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, Greece and Roman Culture (one found in the UK was a gold box containing sulphur).
That said its not something that I'd spend my eternal un-life obsessing over

 

[Lazybones]

Many low-level foes got a boost. For example, the hobgoblin warrior still does an average of 12 damage when an ally is adjacent, but now it has advantage on that attack. May not seem like much, but against low-level opponents a couple of them are now a much more dangerous threat. And if they are alone, they still do the 12 damage if they hit. The bugbear, gnoll, goblin, and kobold warriors all got more hit points than their 2014 counterparts; not a lot, but enough to give them a bit more staying power against the upgraded 2024 PCs.

 

[Reynard]

Many low-level foes got a boost. For example, the hobgoblin warrior still does an average of 12 damage when an ally is adjacent, but now it has advantage on that attack. May not seem like much, but against low-level opponents a couple of them are now a much more dangerous threat. And if they are alone, they still do the 12 damage if they hit. The bugbear, gnoll, goblin, and kobold warriors all got more hit points than their 2014 counterparts; not a lot, but enough to give them a bit more staying power against the upgraded 2024 PCs.

I was running a module this week with zombies in it. I am running via fantasy grounds and it is a legacy module, so it used the old stats. I decided after the encounter to look up 2024 zombies just for comparison sake.

2024 zombies are significantly easier to kill (15 hp compared to 2014's 22) but hit slightly harder (1d8+1 vs 1d6+1). They are otherwise identical.

The LevelUp zombie is much more dangerous than either: same hp as the 2024 zombie, but with a grapple ability followed up by a serious bit attack.

I think I may forgo the 2024 MM in Fantasy grounds and just use the LevelUp MM in its place. I like the design and I don't think 2024 went far enough with most creature revisions.