D&D (2024) New Celestials | 2024 Monster Manual | D&D

[MGibster]

I will say I've been quite surprised about the vigorous discussion surrounding changes to creature classifications. For the most part, I rarely cared. I understand classifications have implications for certain spells, good luck trying to talk to a griffin with Speak with Animals, but I feel as though people who deeply care about this do so for reasons beyond mechanics. I'm not arguing people are wrong to have these feelings, but it's just a reminder that aspects of the game are more important to some and less to others.

 

[Tonguez]

So Tieflings are offspring of Empyreans too?

and i really dont like the colourful lion sphinx

 

[Minigiant]

I love the expansion of Celestials. I could see DMS giving each good Deity their one set of Celestials for their heavens.

Light- Angels
Life- Land based Animal Lords
War- Empyreans (Those I think Einherjar and Valkyries would be better)
Trickery- Celestial Eladrin
Knowledge- Sphinxes
Order- Archons
Tempest- Water and Air Animal Lords

 

[InkTide]

I don't like the new sphinx design, but I've never liked D&D's winged lion 'sphinxes,' partly because sphinxes in pretty much every real-world culture they appear in have non-lion parts (usually human heads, sometimes even human bodies with lion heads IIRC) besides the wings, if they even have wings at all.

It's not a new problem - AFAIK all sphinxes being generic winged lions (which does not faithfully depict real-world sphinx iconography at all - there was an article saying they were changed to be closer to Hindu/Buddhist sphinxes at one point but either that article is incorrect or WotC needs to replace their cultural consultants, because Hindu/Buddhist sphinxes also have human heads) is something 4e gave us. I almost miss the weird eagle-headed hieracosphinxes or the goat-headed criosphinxes. Almost.

If I hadn't been told the art was for sphinxes and I didn't know what tressym were I would have just thought "wow that's a colorful winged lion, I wonder what the name for this D&D creature I don't recognize is?" Since I knew what tressym are my first thought was "wow, that's a pretty design for tressym" followed shortly by "holy crap that's a massive tressym."

Now my excitement for new tressym variants (you think I'm being sarcastic, I assure you I am not) is squashed and replaced with "yeah, D&D still doesn't know what a sphinx is - disregard the MM art." Which... hasn't really changed much at all, to be honest. I already felt that way with the 2014 MM sphinx art. (The 4e art looks like it's in pain just from sitting there.)

 

[Aldarc]

Ok, I found it. It was actually here on EnWorld. Here Keith (Hellcow) talks about it: Eberron has always been tied to the multiverse.

He is saying that Eberron is part of the D&D Multiverse and NOT that Eberron is part of or uses the Great Wheel.

D&D Multiverse =! The Great Wheel.

 

[dave2008]

He is saying that Eberron is part of the D&D Multiverse and NOT that Eberron is part of or uses the Great Wheel.

D&D Multiverse =! The Great Wheel.

being part of the D&D multiverse is the same as being part of, or having a relationship to, the Great Wheel. As noted in the DMG, the Great Wheel is just a theoretical model of the Multiverse, it is not an actual physical manifestation of the multiverse. It is no more true than the World Axis or World Tree. The point is Eberron is part of the same multiverse as everything else in D&D.

 

[dave2008]

I don't like the new sphinx design, but I've never liked D&D's winged lion 'sphinxes,' partly because sphinxes in pretty much every real-world culture they appear in have non-lion parts (usually human heads, sometimes even human bodies with lion heads IIRC) besides the wings, if they even have wings at all.

It's not a new problem - AFAIK all sphinxes being generic winged lions (which does not faithfully depict real-world sphinx iconography at all - there was an article saying they were changed to be closer to Hindu/Buddhist sphinxes at one point but either that article is incorrect or WotC needs to replace their cultural consultants, because Hindu/Buddhist sphinxes also have human heads) is something 4e gave us. I almost miss the weird eagle-headed hieracosphinxes or the goat-headed criosphinxes. Almost.

If I hadn't been told the art was for sphinxes and I didn't know what tressym were I would have just thought "wow that's a colorful winged lion, I wonder what the name for this D&D creature I don't recognize is?" Since I knew what tressym are my first thought was "wow, that's a pretty design for tressym" followed shortly by "holy crap that's a massive tressym."

Now my excitement for new tressym variants (you think I'm being sarcastic, I assure you I am not) is squashed and replaced with "yeah, D&D still doesn't know what a sphinx is - disregard the MM art." Which... hasn't really changed much at all, to be honest. I already felt that way with the 2014 MM sphinx art. (The 4e art looks like it's in pain just from sitting there.)

In general I like that D&D takes its own path on many creatures. D&D should be its own thing and not slavishly follow mythology or folklore IMO. However, I do think sphinxes all just being big winged lions / cats (which are really cool) is a bit of a mistake.

 

[Aldarc]

being part of the D&D multiverse is the same as being part of, or having a relationship to, the Great Wheel. As noted in the DMG, the Great Wheel is just a theoretical model of the Multiverse, it is not an actual physical manifestation of the multiverse. It is no more true than the World Axis or World Tree. The point is Eberron is part of the same multiverse as everything else in D&D.

I disagree with your assertion here, but I doubt that I will dissuade you from what I see as your categorical mistake, but I don't want to spend my time arguing with a brick wall.

 

[Corinnguard]

Is it just me or does WOTC seem allergic to the word Aasimon?

"Aasimon says..."

Guardinals, Eldarin, and Archons should have been in the MM 2024, and it's a big failure that they aren't.

Agreed. Pathfinder 1st edition wasn't shy about including these three in their bestiaries (even though they went by different names). So, what's WoTC's excuse?

Btw @Henadic Theologian, there is a 3pp for 5e that has a several PC playable versions of the Archons. In Caliya's Chronicle of Runes, there is a group of archons known as the Unbound Archons. These are Archons who, after centuries of service, retired and gave up their divinity to live among the material plane species. There are PC versions of the Hound, Stag, Trumpet and Ursa (formerly known as the Warden Archons) Archons. There are several more, but I can't remember what they were. The book is still in the playtesting phase and ought to be coming out this year.

Two of the three are in Planescape.

Which two of the three are in Planescape? curious If Planescape's monster book was being sold separately instead of being sold with the other two books as a threesome, I would have gotten it because I like monster books.

 

[dave2008]

I disagree with your assertion here, but I doubt that I will dissuade you from what I see as your categorical mistake, but I don't want to spend my time arguing with a brick wall.

Agreed. Nothing to argue about anyway as far as I am concerned.