D&D 5E One thing I want in my 5e!

[Sylrae]

Give me back my monsters!

I want the monsters that got ignored in 4e back. And Ideally, I want the ones who had special iconic powers to all have them again. Annd Put the monsters back in their categories.

Example: It really bugged me how they changes up all the fiend types. Alot of them didnt make much sense in 4e. Succubi as Devils, Yugoloths as Demons. etc.

Wasn't a big fan of eladrin either. Not because of the race, but because they wiped out a category of celestials to take the name, and the celestials that were in that category mostly faded into nothingness.

Likewise for the dragon races. Dragonborn come out (I don't like them that much, but here's the part that gnawed at me...), and so they discontinue any mention of any of the existing dragon races from previous editions: Draconians, Dragonkin, and Half-Dragons. I'm all for new monsters, and new types of orcs, and all that stuff, but when it comes to a new edition of a new game, I want all the monsters I already liked and will want to use to still be available, and Ideally to still have the same iconic abilities and notable features.

Minotaurs are 9 feet tall, have horns, are immune to maze, and never get lost. Succubi are demons that can charm you into helping them longterm until/unless they attack you, and do magic stuff, but generally avoid proper combat or fair fights.

Beholders lost what made them so damn scary in 4e too (the ability to use all of its eyebeams in a round, and still move.)

 

[Connorsrpg]

I can understand your qualms about some abilities being lost, but some also got ideal new powers.

On the whole categories of monsters. Sorry, but I believe 4E cleaned it up and got it right. I like the distinction between Devils and Demons in 4E. (As for yugoloths, daemons, whatever - I don't care either way, but can understand people wanting them back - and I likely believe they will be as it sounds like old alignments may make a return). Eladrin are much better as fey than celestials and the Bralani (whatever the old celestial eladrins were?) were in 4E, but as fey, which I guess is your concern.

I believe draconians were done - in Draconomicon 2 if I remember correctly. WITH a whole heap of new ones. Dragonkin? - I reckon Dragonborn fill that niche well enough, but I am with you on the return of Half-dragon templates/creatures, though again, wasn't there a Draconic template in Draconomicon 1?

I thought minotaurs were done well in 4E. I believe tiny powers like being immune to one spell can easily be made on the fly by a GM, but I can understand you concern here. However, I am not really in favour of clogging up monster stat blocks again.

As for beholders - couldn't really comment. Never used one from memory. (Must look what their attacks look like in 4E).

 

[Sylrae]

On the whole categories of monsters. Sorry, but I believe 4E cleaned it up and got it right. I like the distinction between Devils and Demons in 4E. (As for yugoloths, daemons, whatever - I don't care either way, but can understand people wanting them back - and I likely believe they will be as it sounds like old alignments may make a return).

Hmm.

Eladrin are much better as fey than celestials and the Bralani (whatever the old celestial eladrins were?) were in 4E, but as fey, which I guess is your concern.[/quote]The Bralani were like one of half a dozen types of eladrin.

I believe draconians were done - in Draconomicon 2 if I remember correctly. WITH a whole heap of new ones. Dragonkin? - I reckon Dragonborn fill that niche well enough, but I am with you on the return of Half-dragon templates/creatures, though again, wasn't there a Draconic template in Draconomicon 1?

Ah, you might be right about the draconians. I never got draconomicon 2. I disagree about the dragonborn being an acceptable dragonkin replacement though. But I wont be satisfied by 'filling' the niche of a flying creature with a non flying one. And I'm not sure I agree with niche filling at all, for that matter. I do want the actual creatures to make an appearance, not just something sortof similar.

I thought minotaurs were done well in 4E. I believe tiny powers like being immune to one spell can easily be made on the fly by a GM, but I can understand you concern here.

That was more a gripe with the player version than the monster version - which was so watered down that I thought it was insulting to even call them minotaurs, they were just miniature cow people.

but yeah, something saying a minotaur can never get lost without being put on another plane would have helped.

However, I am not really in favour of clogging up monster stat blocks again.

I dont need all the extra crap numbers and monster feats that 3e had, but any iconic or unusual abilities should be there, even if they get used outside of combat. (Like how all githyanki had the ability to planeshift pre 4e), And any really notable skill bonuses should be mentioned, as well.

As for beholders - couldn't really comment. Never used one from memory. (Must look what their attacks look like in 4E).

They're not very impressive if you remember the old ones. But the old Beholders were quite a bit more death than you see in 4e. Several save or suck attacks, and it can use all of them in a single round. Very much a glass cannon iirc, and still very scary.

I understand why they did it, but the result left me very underwhelmed. I'd rather just not see beholders, than see beholders that aren't. It kills my hope that they might some day release one I'd consider worth using.

 

[Connorsrpg]

RE Minotaurs - so you disliked the PC race or the MM write-ups?

RE Eladrin - yeah, I remember that there were sev types. What I was getting at was that several advanced fey/eladrin) with the names and peculiarities of the 'old' eladrin were done throughout 4E. I really, really liked these fey. (But if you like the old each alignment has a matching 'outsider', I can understand your gripes with missing a category. BTW I loved this idea initially, especially through 2E, but the cosmology/creature origins of 4E resonates with the GM I am today ).

I thought the 4E dragons were a little underwhelming. Later creatures (esp solos) got much better powers as 4E advanced, so I guess they suffered from being early stats. Maybe the beholder was in the same boat?

I certainly do not want to return to stat blocks where I have to crossreference several abilites either But I also see your concern re special abilities and options. I would prefer they added an 'Ideas & Options' section to the bottom of each monster write-up if you wanted to add spells, or RPing mechanics, extra feats/powers, alternate powers, etc. I think that could satisfy a lot of people (and saves the writers writing alternate powers in later books. Alternate powers in a book different to the one the monster is in rarely get used in my XP).

 

[vagabundo]

I understand why they did it, but the result left me very underwhelmed. I'd rather just not see beholders, than see beholders that aren't. It kills my hope that they might some day release one I'd consider worth using.

I ran beholders in 3e and in 4e. The 3e beholder got mushed in about 0.5 seconds. The 4e beholder put up a good fight - actually one of the more memorable fights we've had in 4e - with the halfling rogue catapulted by the dragonborn fighter into the air stabbing the central eye of the beholder with a crit and clinging on to do more attacks. It survived quite a few rounds doing some good damage.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't know what Monster Manual beholders are like, but Monster Vault beholders are awesome. As a DM I have seldom had so much fun running a combat.

I'm not sure the players shared my enthusiasm, though.

 

[Wormwood]

oh this again.

1. iconic powers are generally there. Medusae turn you to stone. Rust monsters destroy your metal stuff.

2. Succubi make more sense as devils because devils are manipulative bastards while demons are destructive monsters. Yugoloths, fine whatever.

3. Eladrin. I will concede that appropriating the name of an obscure extra-planar footnote race was confusing to the 1% of gamers who actually knew what an Eladrin used to be. But since Eladrin are arguably the most popular 4e race, that is not going to be undone in 5e. Full stop.

4. I agree. We need more dragon-people.

5. You don't like minotaurs, hate on Dragonlance not 4e.

6. Beholders are *amazing* in 4e.

 

[Sylrae]

oh this again.

They're legitimate things to dislike, you dont need to get all hostile about it.

1. iconic powers are generally there. Medusae turn you to stone. Rust monsters destroy your metal stuff.

The iconic powers that weren't "attacks" generally aren't there anymore. Githyanki generally don't have planeshift anymore. Succubi dont have the suggestion, charm, greater teleport, or the ability to read minds anymore. They don't even kill you by seducing you. I remember there being more examples, but I got rid of my 4e books a while ago so I cant look anything up anymore.

2. Succubi make more sense as devils because devils are manipulative bastards while demons are destructive monsters. Yugoloths, fine whatever.

Wait.. What? that doesn't make sense at all. Devils want are all about being power hungry and laws without morals. Demons want to destroy and corrupt things, and cause chaos. Succubi enjoy corrupting mortals and killing them by damaging their souls or whatever (3x did it as level drain), and manipulating them into killing their friends. Clearly demons.

3. Eladrin. I will concede that appropriating the name of an obscure extra-planar footnote race was confusing to the 1% of gamers who actually knew what an Eladrin used to be. But since Eladrin are arguably the most popular 4e race, that is not going to be undone in 5e. Full stop.

Obscure footnote? I saw alot more use out of Eladrin than I did out of most of the archons (which were typically angels).

It's shocking just how much of the "cool new stuff" 4e brought in can leave a bad taste in your mouth because they threw away several other somethings that were cool to make it.

Even if they keep the concept of the race, they could afford to rename it so people can actually use Eladrin again. I mean, they changed all kinds of names and categories in 4e, I can't see it being that hard to come up with a new word to bring back the old things they got rid of in 4e. Or I suppose they could call the Eladrin Agathions, like pathfinder did, and they can keep their Elves with teleport named Eladrin, and their wood elves can just be elves still I guess. A name change would be mildly irritating, but not nearly as irritating as cutting the creatures out of the game completely, or cutting out a bunch, and changing the ones you leave in into different types of monsters (in this case, mostly fey).

4. I agree. We need more dragon-people.

5. You don't like minotaurs, hate on Dragonlance not 4e.

I like minotaurs. The 4e bestiary version didn't impress me much, I didn't care for the artwork, and the "PC Race Minotaur" was so watered down it made me angry - because it meant I was stuck with that crap instead of something decent, and therefore would never want to play what would usually be one of my favorite options.

6. Beholders are *amazing* in 4e.

hmm. Maybe some of the Upgraded Beholders are good. I'm thinking of the basic one, being underwhelming.

It's worth noting that as far as I'm concerned, there is no way to do a retcon that isn't irritating, unless the retcon is to undo a retcon you did before.

But yeah. I want my AD&D and 3E D&D monsters back. Why wouldn't I want all the monsters I've used and found I really liked?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The classic D&D stuff: The Great Wheel and its inhabitants was developed wonderfully over the years. The Demon/Devil/Yugoloth paradigm especially. There are a lot of things there that aren't broken and didn't need to be fixed. Of course, that goes in tandem with the nine alignments, which also need to be returned.

The succubi thing is really strange. A really well-played succubus was a total anarchist and a psychopath, and incredibly terrifying. Why change one of the most popular demons?

I would also like to see a true set of dragon races in its own book rather than trying to shoehorn one into the core rules. And the return of the Dragonborn concept.

Eladrin. I will concede that appropriating the name of an obscure extra-planar footnote race was confusing to the 1% of gamers who actually knew what an Eladrin used to be. But since Eladrin are arguably the most popular 4e race, that is not going to be undone in 5e. Full stop.

Wait, what? They may not be quite as ubiquitous as the evil outsiders, but I think a large portion of gamers-and certainly most anyone who reads monster books-would recognize that guardinals, archons, and eladrin are the three alignment-based subspecies of celestials. They're probably as well known or better than many other classic extraplanar species: rilmani, modrons, slaadi, formians, etc. Why steal the name for a bunch of teleporting elves? Can't they just be called something else, something more appropriate?

(That is, if you like teleporting elves).

 

[noffham]

Given the tone of everything so far released about the new edition, I'd say it pretty much comes down to: "If that's the way you want it, that's the way you do it".

Simple, no?