D&D General The Revised Monster Manual was released 1 year ago today! How have you liked facing down and using the new monsters?

The only thing I really dislike is that Dragons, Demons, Devils, Giants...etc, are not lumped alphabetically under that heading. The other week I ran a fight with Hill Giants and Stone Giants, and it was just frustrating to keep swapping back and forth. Had they all been under Giant it would have been better.
yeah, I would not mind them going truly alphabetical, but all they did is establish a new idiosyncratic sequence in which some things are broken up (dragons by color) but others are still lumped together, and everyone now has to get used to this one even though I does not make more sense than the old one - and arguably less
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Caveat: I run the MM through DDB, so while I acknowledge some weird organization choices in the physical edition, which I also own for reading purposes, these aren't a factor in how I use the new MM.

The mosters are significantly improved in most cases. They are tougher, and because their damage is now usually spread among different damage types (e.g. slashing AND lightning damage, etc.) they are more challenging against things like a barbarian's rage (note: this was a de facto nerf to barbarians; they are now clearly the weakest of the four main marrtial classes, IMO - fighters, paladins, monks, and barbarians).

The text descriptions have good flavour without too much lore, letting DMs choose how the creature fits in their setting. For me, this is a very positive change.

There are more flavourful options for a lot of monsters, making the battles more tactical, except...

Spellcasters SUCK. This is a change that began with Monsters of the Multiverse: primary casters now just get a handful of spells instead of full lists, including creatures such as liches and archmages. I HATE this change! It makes them way more predictable in combat. I understand that it makes running them easier for novices, but most DMs know the rules and aren't bothered by having multiple spell options to choose from. Fortunately, DDB makes it easy for me to just use the legacy versions of spellcasters in most cases.

I also dislike that fantasy staples like elves and orcs aren't individually represented. Yes, I know that you can use statblocks like "guard" for any of them, but that takes away a lot of flavour. How hard would it have been to have one or two representatives of those classic archetypes, with a special ability or two to make them distinct? Orc warrior, Elf scout, etc. This is made more strange by the fact that some other classic species are represented this way.

Alignment is still used. I know it's a legacy thing and some folks insist on it, but I strongly dislike it and wish they'd at least stuck with the MotM convention of putting the word "typically" in front of it. And yes, I know this is mentioned in the forward but it still irks me.
 

You should really try the new monsters, especially if you already have the books. The old ones are badly balanced, finicky and all over the place. A lot of people have cited better results with less effort fielding the revised designs.
The only 5E game I run is a casual, very occasional game (once every 1-2 months). I've been hesitant to implement any of the new 2024 material because:
1) I own enough copies of the 2014 book to share and don't want anyone to feel obligated to purchase new books.
2) I don't want to switch rules on people who already aren't invested in precision in their games.
3) The adventures I run are 2014 and created by 3rd party publishers, including Arcane Library and Planet X Games, who use their own original monsters. It would be more work to convert/replace the creatures.
 

Remove ads

Top