D&D (2024) "D&D Monster Manual 2025 is going to pack a serious punch thanks to a family of monsters descended from gods, and frankly I’m terrified"(Gamesradar)

That is the most vocal minority---a minority of 1. ;)

I will cry out against the direction WotC continues to take 5E until my dying breath. No more supers, no more supers! :D
Having uber powerful monsters is not a WotC thing. They have been in the game from the beginning. The most powerful monster in the 2014 MM was the Tarrasque (CR 30). The tarrasque first appeared in the 1e MM2 and was, relatively speaking, more powerful than the 2024 version. That doesn't even get into the multitude of archdevils and demonlords in both the MM1 and MM2, or the literal gods in Deities and Demigods.

Regarding the Monster Manual specifically, the 1e MM had 8 demon lords and archdevils, the MM2 added another 14. The 5e MM has 0. That is really just scratching the surface of the disparity in high level threats between 1e and 5e.

You may not like supers, but having super-sized threats is not new to the game and is not a creation of WotC.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

You may not like supers, but having super-sized threats is not new to the game and is not a creation of WotC.
True, but WotC just keeps piling it on...

To be clear, I have no issue with super-sized threats in the game. Most campaigns that go the distance end with something along those lines: lich, ancient dragon, powerful fiend lord, etc. up to something like the Tarrasque. But that was presented in AD&D as unique, now WotC wants all sorts of different "calamities". No, thank you. The super-threats we already have are quite sufficient--after all, how often do groups actually use them? Rarely IME-- less than 1 game in 5 at most.

This is just going to continue the game moving in the wrong direction. I know you like super-threats--I've read your creatures in the other thread, they're WAY over the top generally IMO and not to my taste. You want them? Fine, you have them--you made them. However, WotC doing it and promoting it is moving things the wrong way for me, and so I will voice my displeasure.

I will continue to be the vocal minority. People are welcome to nay-say against me, of course, but it won't stop me.
 


True, but WotC just keeps piling it on...

To be clear, I have no issue with super-sized threats in the game. Most campaigns that go the distance end with something along those lines: lich, ancient dragon, powerful fiend lord, etc. up to something like the Tarrasque. But that was presented in AD&D as unique, now WotC wants all sorts of different "calamities". No, thank you. The super-threats we already have are quite sufficient--after all, how often do groups actually use them? Rarely IME-- less than 1 game in 5 at most.

This is just going to continue the game moving in the wrong direction. I know you like super-threats--I've read your creatures in the other thread, they're WAY over the top generally IMO and not to my taste. You want them? Fine, you have them--you made them. However, WotC doing it and promoting it is moving things the wrong way for me, and so I will voice my displeasure.

I will continue to be the vocal minority. People are welcome to nay-say against me, of course, but it won't stop me.
It is fine for to not like them. I have no issue with that.

The only issue I have with your stance is that you seem to think WotC is moving the game in particular direction with high CR threats when they have clearly been in the game for a long time. There are loads of high-threat monsters in 1e and it has only got more so with each edition since. Have you ever looked at 2e dragons? Just the standard chromatic and metallic dragons are terrifyingly strong. Heck, the breath weapons in 1e dragons were some of the most devastating attacks any monster had. A 1e Ancient red dragon did 88 damage with its breath weapon, without having some super-powered PCs that is a TPK waiting to happen. And there is not a demon lord or archdevil that has a more powerful attack. Heck the vast majority of the gods in the 1e Deities & Demigods don't have attacks that powerful! So don't give a lame excuse that only unique monsters in 1e are powerful (that doesn't even matter anyway).
 

True, but WotC just keeps piling it on...

To be clear, I have no issue with super-sized threats in the game. Most campaigns that go the distance end with something along those lines: lich, ancient dragon, powerful fiend lord, etc. up to something like the Tarrasque. But that was presented in AD&D as unique, now WotC wants all sorts of different "calamities".
So they mentioned the Tarrasque, the Kraken, and the Empyrean in the article - those are all monsters from 1e! I am not sure of when we first got Atropals (maybe @Echohawk knows), but we had them in 3e and 4e and of course they are not new to 5e either (introduced in Tomb of Annihilation).
No, thank you. The super-threats we already have are quite sufficient--after all, how often do groups actually use them? Rarely IME-- less than 1 game in 5 at most.
So, 1 in 5 is something like 10 million people (based on WotC numbers from about 8 years ago - probably more now). Are you suggesting WotC should provide monsters that many of their fans?
 

It is fine for to not like them. I have no issue with that.
Really? You seem to...

So don't give a lame excuse that only unique monsters in 1e are powerful (that doesn't even matter anyway).
Did I say that? No. I said the Tarrasque. It is actually right there in the stat block:

1735408080429.png


Lame excuse? Yeah, ok... you definitely seem to have an issue with this.

So they mentioned the Tarrasque, the Kraken, and the Empyrean in the article - those are all monsters from 1e!
Please! The kraken in MM2 is just a 20 HD monster (avg hp is only 90!!!). Hardly a "calamity" like the Tarrasque (with 300 hp in 1E!) or the other things we are likely to see in this new 2024 MM!

To be honest, I don't recall the Empyrean in 1E... but I could easily be wrong. 2E, I think, I remember it there, but that's a minor issue either way.

So, 1 in 5 is something like 10 million people (based on WotC numbers from about 8 years ago - probably more now). Are you suggesting WotC should provide monsters that many of their fans?
LOL well, I was being overly generous. It is probably much, much rarer than 1 in 5. I am suggesting the make a separate Epic Level book for tier 4 and beyond; not something mixed in for the D&D that most people actually play regularly.

And I'm suggesting they stop the madness of the power-war-escalation cycle they began with 3E and have moved on since then.

Oh, and dragons in 1E were laughable. That is why we saw the increase in their power in 2E--to make them scary. Just FYI. I remeber the numerous Dragon Magazine articles about how to make your 1E dragon actually a threat. Heck, I think I still have the Role-Aid Dragon book lying around somewhere...

Anyway, I would rather they take monsters we use and make them a bit more interesting. Ogres are a great example IME, giants are another one.

But, they won't do much---or they will probably do too much... that is their tendency IMO.

And all this is nothing new. I'm surprised, frankly, and the response my initial post created. I thought I would say my part, get a laugh or two, maybe a couple likes, even some sad faces from people who disagree with me. But the response seems to imply people do take issue with the stance. ;)
 

Lame excuse? Yeah, ok... you definitely seem to have an issue with this.
Yes, saying something is unique (which wasn't even a "Frequency" until the MM2) is a lame excuse. These are campaign ending monsters - you only ever need one in an adventure! Heck, the Tarasque in 5e is also presented as being unique. That doesn't change the fact they are high level threats.
Please! The kraken in MM2 is just a 20 HD monster (avg hp is only 90!!!). Hardly a "calamity" like the Tarrasque (with 300 hp in 1E!) or the other things we are likely to see in this new 2024 MM!
That just shows how crazy super-powered high level 1e PCs where! I mean krakens attack ships and drag them underwater according to the 1e MM2. By 2e they are even more threatening: "It is one or the most deadly monsters in existence."

1735409383290.png


So is this a WotC trend or a D&D trend? Perhaps how you played was not how everyone played?

But, most importantly. How does having higher CR monsters hurt your game? You can just ignore them. That is a lot easier than those groups who want to challenge high CR monsters having to create them.
 
Last edited:

It's already in the game. It was a monster in Tomb of Annihilation.
Which also makes it an ideal candidate (from a Wizards standpoint at least) for an update to 2024 rules.

I am not sure of when we first got Atropals (maybe @Echohawk knows), but we had them in 3e and 4e and of course they are not new to 5e either (introduced in Tomb of Annihilation).
As far as I know, the atropal first appeared in 3e's Epic Level Handbook. (Though I'm certainly not @Echohawk tier in my expertise!)
 

Yes, saying something is unique (which wasn't even a "Frequency" until the MM2) is a lame excuse.
Ok, please stop insulting me. It isn't a "lame" excuse because 1) it isn't "lame" it is part of the game, and 2) it isn't an "excuse" for anything.

MM2 added it because they realized they needed it for creatures which are in fact unique.

I'm sure Tiamat and others would have had it if they had thought to include it in the MM1.

That just shows how crazy super-powered high level 1e PCs where!
LOL are you kidding me!?! Look at what WotC has done to increase PC power with every edition!!!

So is this a WotC trend or a D&D trend? Perhaps how you played was not how everyone played?
And to be clear, just saying TSR doing something doesn't mean it is any better (or make it any better) when WotC does it, and to an even greater extent.

But, most importantly. How does having higher CR monsters hurt your game? You can just ignore them. That is a lot easier than those groups who want to challenge high CR monsters having to create them.
Because WotC is using its resources to make something I don't want and can't use? So, yeah, its annoying. Just like it would be annoying for you and others if the new MM came out without a single CR 15+ new creature in it.

Instead of the 50th anniversary release being something cool and fun that is something I can use to make my game better, I get the stuff we got. Again, it is annoying and disappointing.

Why does it bother you so much that it bothers me? You said a while back this isn't an issue for you, but clearly it is.
 

Ok, please stop insulting me. It isn't a "lame" excuse because 1) it isn't "lame" it is part of the game, and 2) it isn't an "excuse" for anything.
It is a lame excuse, that doesn't mean you are lame. Never said that.

However, I may have misunderstood, misremembered, or misattributed something to you. I thought you made the argument that unique monsters are OK to be high level / CR threats because there is only one of them. Like you made the argument you are not supposed to fight the gods, heroes, and monsters in Deities and Demigods (of which some are equivalent to monsters in the MM).

I don't understand you dislike for high threat monsters, but as I said before I don't have an issue with it. The only issue I have is the idea that high threat monsters are a WotC invention, when they are very clearly present at the very beginnings of the game.

To be clear, I am not talking about PC power. That, to me, is a separate issue (though it can be related). On that front though, it is not like WotC is always making PCs more powerful. PC power in 5e is less than it was in 4e or 3e. So while some 2024 PCs are marginally more powerful than 2014, some are actually weaker too. Overall, 5e PCs are the weakest version on PCs by WotC. So the trend for WotC is to make PCs less super-powered, not more.

EDIT: It looks like I've been blocked - probably better for the both of us!
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top