D&D (2024) Humanoids in the MM...

[dave2008]

No. I do not expect them to. But they could surprise me.

That is definitely something they could do. Do you think they're likely to?

Did you know there is exactly such a table in the 2014 DMG?

 

[Reynard]

Did you know there is exactly such a table in the 2014 DMG?

Maybe I was not clear: I want this entry for each NPC type.

ETA or at least each "combat" NPC type

 

[dave2008]

Maybe I was not clear: I want this entry for each NPC type.

ETA or at least each "combat" NPC type

So you want each NPC to have the same table with 25 different lines for species specific modifications? That seems very redundant and a waste space. I assume that is not what you mean, can you clarify?

EDIT: @Reynard and @Micah Sweet Here is the table from the DMG. I assume you don't want this, or something similar, to be reprinted with every NPC stat block?! Note, if such a table appears in the MM, I am sure it will modified in some way. I don't expect to see ability modifies as part of it.

 

[Remathilis]

It seems simple enough to add a small table of options.

Let's say bandits
If the bandit is... Then...
A goblin they may use a bonus action to dash or disengage; darkvision
A dwarf they have +10 hp and do +1 additional damage in melee; adarkvision
A Elf they have +2 to hit and damage with a bow and can cast misty step once/long rest
A half giant they have double standard hit points and do an additional die of damage with attacks

Something like that: still concise but right there so it is actually useful, even if the GM has decided to make a mixed group of bandits (which they should).

Conceptually, I think they will do that, but I disagree with the bonuses you suggested because they change "The Math". What I suspect is something closer to this:

Elf: Darkvision 60 ft, fey ancestry, misty step prof mod per day
Elf, Drow: darkvision 120 ft, fey ancestry, darkness, dancing lights, Fairie fire.
Dwarf: darkvision 120 ft, poison resistance, stoneslcunning
Dragonborn: darkvision 60 ft, resist 1 element, replace 1 attack with breath weapon (1d10 + Con in AOE).
Goblin: small, fey ancestry, darkvision 60 ft, nimble escape.

Etc.

 

[Reynard]

So you want each NPC to have the same table with 20 different lines for species specific modifications? That seems like to be very redundant and a waste space. I assume that is not what you mean, can you clarify?

If I was designing it, I would include a small table of about 100 words with information similar to what I wrote above, tailored to the NPC type. I would also have two or three statblocks for each type representing different CRs, and I would have far fewer NPC types because the difference between a Guard and a Warrior is... well, nothing. And importantly, I would get rid of at least 50% of all lore. Look at the Kuo-Toa entry we have seen: one stat block and, what, 600 words over a 2 page spread. Wasteful.

 

[Reynard]

So you want each NPC to have the same table with 25 different lines for species specific modifications? That seems very redundant and a waste space. I assume that is not what you mean, can you clarify?

EDIT: @Reynard and @Micah Sweet Here is the table from the DMG. I assume you don't want this, or something similar, to be reprinted with every NPC stat block?! Note, if such a table appears in the MM, I am sure it will modified in some way. I don't expect to see ability modifies as part of it.

View attachment 392703

This is a useful table and I have used it in 5E, but I prefer something more specific to the role/use of the NPC at hand. But, yes, this would be better than nothing.

 

[dave2008]

If I was designing it, I would include a small table of about 100 words with information similar to what I wrote above, tailored to the NPC type. I would also have two or three statblocks for each type representing different CRs, and I would have far fewer NPC types because the difference between a Guard and a Warrior is... well, nothing.

OK, I didn't realize you were specifically talking about what you would want just for you. I thought you were generally talking about what would be better. It still seems more efficient to me to have on table for all stat blocks. Though, from comments on Beyond, that doesn't seem like what we are getting.

And importantly, I would get rid of at least 50% of all lore. Look at the Kuo-Toa entry we have seen: one stat block and, what, 600 words over a 2 page spread. Wasteful.

Interesting, you here so many complain there is not a enough lore in the MM. You are one of the few that asks for less! I have conflicting thoughts on the lore issue. Something what you describe is probably the most practical for playing the game at the table. But it lacks in the area of setting, feel, and inspiration. If I had my way we would get a series of monster books:

1. A big book of monsters: just packed with stat blocks, little to now lore or art. Similar to what they put out in the Basic Rules, but for all the monsters.
2. A big lore, art, and stat book for each creature type. So a book on Aberrations, Beasts, Celestials, Dragons, Fiends, etc.

 

[dave2008]

This is a useful table and I have used it in 5E, but I prefer something more specific to the role/use of the NPC at hand. But, yes, this would be better than nothing.

How is one species more specific to the role/use of the NPC? So if you have a Warrior, Mage, Noble, or Pirate NPC, which of these 25 species is not appropriate for those NPC roles? I really feel like I am missing something.

EDIT: to be clear I don't expect to see this table in the 2025 MM.

 

[Reynard]

OK, I didn't realize you were specifically talking about what you would want just for you. I thought you were generally talking about what would be better. It still seems more efficient to me to have on table for all stat blocks. Though, from comments on Beyond, that doesn't seem like what we are getting.

Yeah, I am only talking about what I think would be better/good.

Interesting, you here so many complain there is not a enough lore in the MM. You are one of the few that asks for less! I have conflicting thoughts on the lore issue. Something what you describe is probably the most practical for playing the game at the table. But it lacks in the area of setting, feel, and inspiration. If I had my way we would get a series of monster books:

1. A big book of monsters: just packed with stat blocks, little to now lore or art. Similar to what they put out in the Basic Rules, but for all the monsters.
2. A big lore, art, and stat book for each creature type. So a book on Aberrations, Beasts, Celestials, Dragons, Fiends, etc.

Like many, I started with Metzner and those little snippets were just enough to get my imagination going. Nowadays, Shadowdark does something similar with its minimalist monster entries. I get why some folks want lore, but I find it unwieldy and constraining and not worth the words used that could be used for more interesting use cases.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, I am only talking about what I think would be better/good.

Like many, I started with Metzner and those little snippets were just enough to get my imagination going. Nowadays, Shadowdark does something similar with its minimalist monster entries. I get why some folks want lore, but I find it unwieldy and constraining and not worth the words used that could be used for more interesting use cases.

I get that. I started with 1e MM and BECMI. I found the 1e MM very inspirational, BECMI less so. So I would say I like the 1e lore amount pretty well, though that could very quite a bit. I will say I was less engage with long lore entries like for orcs (though I liked them for demons, devils, and dragons - so probably my monster bias more than anything)

That being said, all the information that goes into a monster entry for LevelUp or Twilight Fables (shout out to @Sacrosanct 's awesome monster book) is incredibly interesting and inspirational. However, I have found that while I like to read those type of monster books, they are not as useful at the table for me. So each has a different function for me.