D&D 5E What do you like, and what do you not like about Volo's Guide to Monsters? (spoilers)

[Shroomy]

The damage resistance part of it is still there, although baked into the stats so it's not so noticeable (and a lot of demons have that anyway, though few low-level ones do). Adding 1d6 acid damage for grapplers or natural weapon attacks is a simple thing to do. The dissolving weapons power would be a bit tougher to add however.

I did find it odd that after having a picture of a slime-dripping babau that the slime wasn't even mentioned, even as flavor, though...

If I ever use a Babau in a home game I'll probably add that ability, just like I'm going to give magic jar to my shadow demons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

What do you like, and what do you not like about Volo's Guide to Monsters?

I like more monsters, such as the Bodak that I'll press into service almost immediately. Specifically, I wanted the official take on how 5E implements its Death Gaze. (The rest I could have whipped up myself if forced to)

I like more NPC stat blocks if and only if these are used in future products. This can happen in (at least) three ways:
a) the same NPC stat blocks are consistently reproduced in the future hardbacks that use them
b) the NPCs are used with reference to Volo's, but also given out for free as online PDF supplements, much like how the Princes of Apocalypse online supplement brought buyers of PotA that rely on Basic Rules only up to speed.
c) the NPCs are added to future printings of Monster Manual

---

Dislikes:

Already when I started to read the first, Beholder, section I groaned. Tables for Beholder Iris Shapes is exactly the kind of stupid useless padding we usually mostly see late in an edition's run, when people are running out of ideas.

It's extremely irritating to see so very many pages wasted on that kind of stuff, that if you need to convey the information at all, you could have said simply "Beholder eye irises are chaotically shaped, with some being slit-shaped, some square, and some even stranger". One line, bam.

A full d20 table is simply word diarrhea. I truly have no nicer name for it.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Reading a bit deeper: I really dislike the full-scale integration of gods into so many aspects of the monsters. To my mind, having orcs, gnolls, etc. so entwined with various deities is both lazy and divisive. It's a cop out to present motivation without personality, and only enhances the "all members of a given group are identical" trope.

 

[CapnZapp]

I guess we finally have a Warlord with non-magical healing.

The NPC Warlord is a 27 HD CR 12 fella with the Survivor ability.

That's a regeneration ability but for the name. It only works up to "non bloodied" (half max), but still.

It's healing. And it's not magical. So that's something.




This guy can also use what I remember as similar to the Purple Knight's ability to grant allies actions. In that it requires the target to spend its reaction, and thus only allows a single attack.

Of course this guy can do this independent of Action Surges. In fact it doesn't even cost him an action, since this is (for the Warlord) a legendary action that can be used every round. So that's definitely something.

 

[flametitan]

I guess we finally have a Warlord with non-magical healing.

The NPC Warlord is a 27 HD CR 12 fella with the Survivor ability.

That's a regeneration ability but for the name. It only works up to "non bloodied" (half max), but still.

It's healing. And it's not magical. So that's something.

Regen's not new for non-magical characters. The champion fighter also got something similar at 18th level.

 

[Shroomy]

Reading a bit deeper: I really dislike the full-scale integration of gods into so many aspects of the monsters. To my mind, having orcs, gnolls, etc. so entwined with various duties is both lazy and divisive. It's a cop out to present motivation without personality, and only enhances the "all members of a given group are identical" trope.

I have to agree, though this trend actually started in 4e. Not all monsters need origin stories, and not all monsters need to be created by the same handful of epic-level bad guys (in Volo's it's primarily Orcus, the Queen of Air and Darkness, and Yeenoghu)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The NPC Warlord is a 27 HD CR 12 fella with the Survivor ability.

That's a regeneration ability but for the name. It only works up to "non bloodied" (half max), but still.

Now I'm flashing back to the "Unofficial NPC Classes" that graced the pages of Dragon Magazine for so many years.

I really dislike the full-scale integration of gods into so many aspects of the monsters. To my mind, having orcs, gnolls, etc. so entwined with various deities is both lazy and divisive. It's a cop out to present motivation without personality, and only enhances the "all members of a given group are identical" trope.

I have to agree, though this trend actually started in ...

It goes /way/ back. Humanoid deities go all the way back to Dragon Magazine articles for 1e, IIRC. 3e got /away/ from the idea that all members of a humanoid race were the same alignment (adding 'usually' to a lot of alignment entries), while 4e put less emphasis on racial deities/pantheons (demoting them to exarchs and giving deities worshipers of other races than the ones they created or were associated with), even edged away from alignment, itself.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Now I'm flashing back to the "Unofficial NPC Classes" that graced the pages of Dragon Magazine for so many years.

It goes /way/ back. Humanoid deities go all the way back to Dragon Magazine articles for 1e, IIRC. 3e got /away/ from the idea that all members of a humanoid race were the same alignment (adding 'usually' to a lot of alignment entries), while 4e put less emphasis on racial deities/pantheons (demoting them to exarchs and giving deities worshipers of other races than the ones they created or were associated with), even edged away from alignment, itself.

Anyone who believes that loads of monstrous deities is a new development need only to read through a copy of 2e's Monster Mythology to be rapidly disabused of that notion...

 

[gyor]

Aasimar are finally more interesting than Tieflings.
I like how the attack "Rock" was listed on almost every giant, except for the really dumb one and the magical one. Because throwing a rock for ranged coverage should be a default assumption in higher level monsters if they are cappible of it, even if they are melee-focused.
Cranium Rats exist again, they are kind of fun.

I don't like the PC race write up for the Kobold, their new ability is lacking and the str penalty is rather unnecessary. ( I would have rather seen the return of Slight Build to make them count as a size smaller than they actually are) In fact, I think that's my new houserule, it's more interesting and can be potential usefull.
I don't like the Orc's write up either. They have almost nothing in common with the Half-Orc. Then again, Half-orcs have even less in common with humans. Maybe the half-orc needs to be rewritten too.
Also, I don't like how fingerprints show up more easily on the variant cover.

I think its odd, but neat that in some ways the 5e Aasimar is darker and more tormented then the Tiefling, I mean the Tiefling doesn't have to choose between having a bossy Angellic Guide in your dreams bossing you around or damning yourself and falling in order to get even 1 good nights sleep. Plus Scrouage Aasimar have a bit of a heaven's pyschos feel to them.

 

[Shroomy]

Anyone who believes that loads of monstrous deities is a new development need only to read through a copy of 2e's Monster Mythology to be rapidly disabused of that notion...

However, my complaint isn't about the proliferation of monstrous deities, it's that many previously unrelated monsters are now the creation of the same handful of epic level bad guys. That's the trend that began in 4e, probably because so much previous lore had been thrown out and because the list of bad guys had been winnowed down. Personally, I don't think that all D&D monsters need such back stories.