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

[Reynard]

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!

I love recharge dice.

Shocking, I know.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Fair enough. I think the dinosaurs and any remaining beasts could easily be put with the rest, but it's a big category in and if itself so I could see making an exception.

 

[pukunui]

I love recharge dice.

Shocking, I know.

Back during my brief foray running 4e, I actually experimented with giving PCs recharges (5-6 for an encounter power and 6 for a daily). It was fun! I think it would be fun for players in 5e too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't think that's what they were going for in either 5e MM. The monsters in question are simple more mundane than the ones in the main part of the book, and are used for more purposes than just threats (like wildshape candidates and familiars).

 

[Maxperson]

For the sake of a workable definition to distinguish a Monstrosity from "natural" animals, it must itself do magic.

No. A workable definition also includes is magic, because is magic =/= natural. You may not like it, but it is in fact a workable definition that does distinguish that sort of monstrosity from natural beasts.

The ways of magic can vary. Lycantrope shapeshifts, the Yeti breathes cold, Thri-kreen telepathizes, etcetera. But it must be full-on magic, perhaps specifically Primal magic.

The requirement of magic isnt much of a stretch since "Monstrosity" inherits much of the "Magical Beast" of earlier editions.


(I still am unsure why Thri-kreen isnt Humanoid, tho.)

A Bullette is not a natural beast as it is an arcane creation of magical crossbreeding. Since it cannot occur naturally, it is a monstrosity and the definition of use magic or is magic works just fine.

 

[Maxperson]

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

In 5e everything that isn't a PC is defined as a monster. I think that's silly and don't use that definition myself, but that is what is written.

 

[pukunui]

I don't think that's what they were going for in either 5e MM. The monsters in question are simple more mundane than the ones in the main part of the book, and are used for more purposes than just threats (like wildshape candidates and familiars).

For the purposes of accessing stat blocks for familiars, summoned creatures, mounts, and wildshape forms, let's compare what's in the new PHB vs what's in the MM's Beast Appendix. Anything in the latter that is not in the former, I have put in bold. Anything in the former that is not in the latter, I have put in italics.

PHB Appendix B: Creature Stat Blocks
Ape
Badger
Bat
Black Bear
Boar
Brown Bear
Camel
Cat
Constrictor Snake
Crab
Crocodile
Dire Wolf
Draft Horse
Elephant
Elk
Frog
Giant Badger
Giant Crab
Giant Goat
Giant Seahorse
Giant Spider
Giant Weasel
Goat
Hawk
Imp
Lion
Lizard
Mastiff
Mule
Octopus
Owl
Panther
Pony
Pseudodragon
Quasit
Rat
Raven
Reef Shark
Riding Horse
Scorpion
Skeleton
Slaad Tadpole
Sphinx of Wonder
Spider
Sprite
Tiger
Venomous Snake
Warhorse
Weasel
Wolf
Zombie

MM Appendix A: Animals
Allosaurus
Ankylosaurus
Ape
Archelon (a Huge sea turtle-like dinosaur)
Baboon
Badger
Bat
Black Bear
Blood Hawk
Boar
Brown Bear
Camel
Cat
Constrictor Snake
Crab
Crocodile
Deer
Dire Wolf
Draft Horse
Elephant
Eagle
Elk
Flying Snake
Frog
Giant Ape
Giant Badger
Giant Bat
Giant Boar
Giant Centipede
Giant Constrictor Snake
Giant Crab
Giant Crocodile
Giant Eagle
Giant Elk
Giant Fire Beetle
Giant Frog
Giant Goat
Giant Hyena
Giant Lizard
Giant Octopus
Giant Rat
Giant Seahorse
Giant Scorpion
Giant Shark
Giant Spider
Giant Toad
Giant Venomous Snake
Giant Vulture
Giant Wasp
Giant Weasel
Giant Wolf Spider
Goat
Hawk
Hippopotamus
Hunter Shark
Hyena
Jackal
Killer Whale
Lion
Lizard
Mammoth
Mastiff
Mule
Octopus
Owl
Panther
Piranha
Plesiosaurus
Polar Bear
Pony
Pteranodon
Rat
Raven
Reef Shark
Rhinoceros
Riding Horse
Saber-Toothed Tiger
Scorpion
Seahorse
Spider
Swarm of Bats
Swarm of Insects
Swarm of Piranhas
Swarm of Rats
Swarm of Ravens
Swarm of Venomous Snakes
Tiger
Triceratops
Tyrannosaurus Rex
Venomous Snake
Vulture
Warhorse
Weasel
Wolf


I think the MM appendix will be more useful for druid players than the PHB appendix.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the MM appendix will be more useful for druid players than the PHB appendix.

With the exception of the swarms, I agree.

 

[Parmandur]

The listed definition is a nondefinition.

It is a fast and loose definition, subject to.simple changes by the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Wow. That really is a sea change. WotC must really want players to feel they can kill stuff in game without feeling bad about it, and will manipulate their lore as needed to make that happen.

I've never in my life met a player who felt bad about killing stuff, unless effort was portrayed by the DM to show the person as innocent or something. But feeling bad because of specific lore? Not one person.