1) If there was any doubt that their intent was for you to take a humanoid statblock and apply species traits to it (if you want the statblocks to vary by species), consider that quashed. Crawford explicitly stated that's what they had in mind.
It would be nice if the DMG or MM would say so (I will say that the humanoid stat blocks are CR-appropriate without any species traits, so adding combat-relevant species traits may be a problem).
It is a nice piece of info that is buried in a video called New Constructs blah with only 16k views. So basically only a few hard core players will ever hear it. It should have been in the monster manual.
I appreciate his advice of "ignore the name Tough" and just look for mechanics and CR that meets the need of the villain|boss|baddie you want.
And I am excited that Drow stuff is coming, I love playing with the stats to see who is stronger, the Drow elite warriors like Zaknafein and Drizzt versus the priestesses vs the mages. Drawing up and simulating battles with the houses of Menzoberranzan is just a lot of fun. I would really like to see Drizzt, Jarlaaxle and Artemis with new 2024 high level 5e stats probably around level 16.
The DMG does go into it under Creating a Creature.
Traits
You can add traits to a creature’s stat block to communicate aspects of the creature’s nature. See the Creature Traits list for sample traits.
Then goes on to give some examples. It doesn't come right out and say "Add species traits" but I guess that is what people need in order to know that they can add traits to make the NPCs fit the desired species.
Also the NPC section refers you to the Creating a Creature section
Choose a stat block from the Monster Manual to represent the NPC’s game statistics. You don’t need to do this if you don’t expect the NPC to engage in combat or use any special abilities (such as casting spells). You can customize the stat block using the guidelines under “Creating a Creature” in this chapter to better reflect the NPC you have in mind.
It would be nice if the DMG or MM would say so (I will say that the humanoid stat blocks are CR-appropriate without any species traits, so adding combat-relevant species traits may be a problem).
1) The DMG does say so (thanks Lia for providing the quote.)
2) They do explicitly warn you against adding traits that increase the creature's HP, grant THP, or increase the creature's damage. You can still do so of course.
The mistake is to make orcs and drow exclusive playable races (or species if you so prefer), not the other way around.
If you want to ban orcs and drow from being playable and turn them into villainous caricatures at your table feel free. The books don't have to follow your lead when the rest of us clearly don't want that though.
1) The DMG does say so (thanks Lia for providing the quote.)
The DMG says no such thing. It gives examples... none of which are species. In practice, most species are rounding errors, but if you turn your guards into dragonborn, goliath (anything but hill), human (depending on feat), or orc, the result will generally be about CR 1/4.
It would be nice if the DMG or MM would say so (I will say that the humanoid stat blocks are CR-appropriate without any species traits, so adding combat-relevant species traits may be a problem).
1) The DMG does say so (thanks Lia for providing the quote.)
2) They do explicitly warn you against adding traits that increase the creature's HP, grant THP, or increase the creature's damage. You can still do so of course.
The mistake is to make orcs and drow exclusive playable races (or species if you so prefer), not the other way around.
If you want to ban orcs and drow from being playable and turn them into villainous caricatures at your table feel free. The books don't have to follow your lead when the rest of us clearly don't want that though.
So basically only a few hard core players will ever hear it. It should have been in the monster manual.
It's in the DMG as multiple people have said now. The expectation is that DMs read that, especially if they plan on modifying the game.
Those "multiple people" are just people copying each other. Unlike others I have actually read those pages and they are an incredibly bland piece of information just telling you generic instructions on how to create a creature. Completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Let me know if the video goes over 500k, then you have something.
The DMG says no such thing. It gives examples... none of which are species. In practice, most species are rounding errors, but if you turn your guards into dragonborn, goliath (anything but hill), human (depending on feat), or orc, the result will generally be about CR 1/4.
1) Species Traits are Traits.
2) Uh... It's a good thing they explicitly warned you about traits that add damage then, isn't it? On that page? In the book?
Those "multiple people" are just people copying each other. Unlike others I have actually read those pages and they are an incredibly bland piece of information just telling you generic instructions on how to create a creature.
In my campaigns, orcs will continue to be evil brutes opposed to the players.
This is why this is not an issue. You can still do that. So what this comes off as is "I play it this way and I'm mad that everyone else isn't told to play it this way!"
For people mad about lack of drow culture... how many books do you need? There are already hundreds if not thousands out there. A book detailing drow society doesn't need a "D&D 2024" brand on it to be useable in a modern game. I'd rather see new stuff than reprints of material that is already widely known/available. Did you know you can run Dark Sun for 5e? The D&D police will not break down your door for using old material for your campaign settings.
Which brings me to my main point, which is that stats should comprise roughly 1% of how a particular culture/species feels at the table. This is a role-playing game and there is not stat for "mean" or "greedy" or "conniving" or "innocent." Any DM worth their salt should be able to make an encounter with savage bandits feel extremely different from an encounter with disciplined soldiers or insane cultists even if those characters just have a basic-ass stat block limited to attributes and a sword they can swing. Having the word evil at the top of the stat block literally does nothing. It's up to you to portray that. That is how it's always been and that is why this argument is meaningless.
This is why this is not an issue. You can still do that. So what this comes off as is "I play it this way and I'm mad that everyone else isn't told to play it this way!"
For people mad about lack of drow culture... how many books do you need? There are already hundreds if not thousands out there. A book detailing drow society doesn't need a "D&D 2024" brand on it to be useable in a modern game. I'd rather see new stuff than reprints of material that is already widely known/available. Did you know you can run Dark Sun for 5e? The D&D police will not break down your door for using old material for your campaign settings.
Exactly, and I'll add - they DID promise us more Drow culture in the next FR book, which will include Menzoberranzan Drow statblocks. That will let them place the "evil Drow" in that book in the proper context - they're evil because they worship an evil goddess and do evil things in her name, not merely because they happen to be Drow.
Which brings me to my main point, which is that stats should comprise roughly 1% of how a particular culture/species feels at the table. This is a role-playing game and there is not stat for "mean" or "greedy" or "conniving" or "innocent." Any DM worth their salt should be able to make an encounter with savage bandits feel extremely different from an encounter with disciplined soldiers or insane cultists even if those characters just have a basic-ass stat block limited to attributes and a sword they can swing. Having the word evil at the top of the stat block literally does nothing. It's up to you to portray that. That is how it's always been and that is why this argument is meaningless.
Not to mention, there are still plenty of statblocks with "evil" at the top if that's all you want.
If the book doesn't have staple D&D foes like Orcs and Drow, then it's a monster manual not worth owning.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
Other options include a tool for leveling an uneven table, a door jam, or perhaps even a drink coaster. Not worth the paper it's printed on.
I'm using my 2024 MM to add to my normal dollar cost averaging investments for the month by not buying it. the MM 2024 was the only 6E book I was going to buy without researching first, but a little itch in my head told me, WotC is going to screw up the book, and make the older books much more useful. And it was right. Hasbro is continuing to use the Disney Star Wars route of writing right now, the culture was never where they were advertising, the same thing going for WotC when they to continue using the same rules for 5E, where's the incentive - less monsters, broken spells, weird writing style? WotC didn't even think to change hold person or charm person.
I get better monsters from AI with proper phrasing than that don't break commonly used spell for 50 years using AI. Tweak here or there, and you are good. Go back to 1E I swear the developers designed monsters for the 1E MM by rolling dice and figuring out how to put the combinations together. You can even have it generate token art as well at the same time depending on the AI model you are using. Just run each step separately and look at the monsters, you'll have something usable and unique. Add a CR to it if you want to limit the CR to your current campaign.
Step 1: Create a list of 100 Greek monsters called [Greek Monsters] Step 2: Create list of 100 cryptid monsters from all human history [Cryptid Monsters]
Step 3: Create a D&D 5E stat block and D&D 3.5E style description of 3 monsters rolled randomly with a combination from the [Greek Monsters] and [Cryptid Monsters]
Keen Smell: The Wendigo Cyclops has advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on smell.
Hungry for Flesh: When the Wendigo Cyclops reduces a creature to 0 hit points, it regains hit points equal to the creature's hit point maximum.
Aura of Fear: Any creature that starts its turn within 10 feet of the Wendigo Cyclops must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or be frightened until the start of its next turn.
Actions:
Multiattack: The Wendigo Cyclops makes two attacks: one with its Greatclub and one with its bite.
Greatclub: Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 18 (2d8 + 6) bludgeoning damage.
Bite: Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 15 (2d6 + 6) piercing damage.
Chilling Howl (Recharge 5-6): The Wendigo Cyclops releases a terrifying howl. All creatures within 30 feet must succeed on a DC 16 Constitution saving throw or take 21 (6d6) cold damage and be paralyzed for 1 minute. A creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.
3.5E Style Description: A twisted blend of the Wendigo’s insatiable hunger for human flesh and the ancient power of the Cyclops, this creature has become a terrifying predator of the north. Standing at nearly 15 feet tall, with a single, glaring eye, the Wendigo Cyclops stalks the frozen wilderness, leaving a trail of frozen corpses in its wake. Its howl is said to freeze the blood of those who hear it, and its bite can tear through even the toughest armor.
If the book doesn't have staple D&D foes like Orcs and Drow, then it's a monster manual not worth owning.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
Sounds lazy and boring, especially when you could instead just have a variety of different orc and drow type opponents. As we've enjoyed for most of the history of D&D.
Oh yes, if the 30 extra pages compared to the '14 MM tell us anything, it's that they just decided to be lazy and cut back on the amount of monster blocks we got. It's not like you can't still use the '14 if you have it; heck, they haven't even taken the '14 core 3 off the market. No one is being deprived here just because they didn't serve a few specific dishes you wanted on this extensive buffet.
Also, who's "we"? I find the specialized NPCs and the setting specific culture writing interesting, but I've been quite content with non species-coded specialized NPCs in encounters as well. If they're that essential to your experience, well and good; you've got several different options on how you can implement them, with more on the way. You can appeal to tradition if you like, but frankly I doubt the majority of players find having orc specific stat blocks in the MM to be particularly essential.
If the book doesn't have staple D&D foes like Orcs and Drow, then it's a monster manual not worth owning.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
Sounds lazy and boring, especially when you could instead just have a variety of different orc and drow type opponents. As we've enjoyed for most of the history of D&D.
Oh yes, if the 30 extra pages compared to the '14 MM tell us anything, it's that they just decided to be lazy and cut back on the amount of monster blocks we got. It's not like you can't still use the '14 if you have it; heck, they haven't even taken the '14 core 3 off the market. No one is being deprived here just because they didn't serve a few specific dishes you wanted on this extensive buffet.
Also, who's "we"? I find the specialized NPCs and the setting specific culture writing interesting, but I've been quite content with non species-coded specialized NPCs in encounters as well. If they're that essential to your experience, well and good; you've got several different options on how you can implement them, with more on the way. You can appeal to tradition if you like, but frankly I doubt the majority of players find having orc specific stat blocks in the MM to be particularly essential.
Oh I'm the exact opposite, I like racial stats for the various races of the game. The idea of reusing the exact same stat and WotC removing racials and special units is the MM with extra steps. I mean if some developers with a unique world views don't want the monsters broken out, racial monsters, heavens putting humanoid and evil where it belongs for monsters used for over 50 years, well compromise and build out the monsters with the name and their abilities, and drop the lore. The concept now is go to the index and try to use their generic human, which its just a wash really. It's a real pain when running Western March using 6E rules, what should be a Drow or Orc for instance doesn't really exist for the encounter and its an incentive not to buy the 2024 MM, which I really wanted to buy but now, no. The argument to use the 5E rules, it doesn't work, they changed the effect CR for the monsters from 5E to 6E and they didn't even give the rules for the new conversion to 6E. I get where you are coming from, but it just fails for what would have been a lot of consumers. You'd think with Hasbro's economic outlook they'd have released a book that applies to a broad audience, this is more of a niche product that doesn't fit the realignment of the Overton window to the medium again. It's a 2020 type of book, not 2025, this design is dead as disco.
If the book doesn't have staple D&D foes like Orcs and Drow, then it's a monster manual not worth owning.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
Sounds lazy and boring, especially when you could instead just have a variety of different orc and drow type opponents. As we've enjoyed for most of the history of D&D.
Oh yes, if the 30 extra pages compared to the '14 MM tell us anything, it's that they just decided to be lazy and cut back on the amount of monster blocks we got. It's not like you can't still use the '14 if you have it; heck, they haven't even taken the '14 core 3 off the market. No one is being deprived here just because they didn't serve a few specific dishes you wanted on this extensive buffet.
Also, who's "we"? I find the specialized NPCs and the setting specific culture writing interesting, but I've been quite content with non species-coded specialized NPCs in encounters as well. If they're that essential to your experience, well and good; you've got several different options on how you can implement them, with more on the way. You can appeal to tradition if you like, but frankly I doubt the majority of players find having orc specific stat blocks in the MM to be particularly essential.
I find it essential as a DM in determining how much of a “humans are the equivalent of roaches and need to be treated as such” attitude when using orcs and other humanoid type creatures simply because they might very well consider other humanoid creatures as monsters.
Plain jane stats are for the weak, I want the bad guys to be able to remind the heroes that not everyone can save the world, no matter who they are.
Otherwise, that BBEG wouldn’t be called a Big Bad-A** Evil Gorgnard for nothing. You can bet I want stats and lore that makes players go: “Well, today is a good day to die after all, … “ , to really hate that BBEG so much that the players are willing to drive their characters to the brink of oblivion to defeat it, or severely weaken it for others to have a fighting chance.
2024 MM, and the entire 2024 D&D rules set is as bland as tofu on a rice cake with water as the drink. It shows they don’t have a problem with dip-feeding content and are more likely to keep pushing sub-standard material for the foreseeable future.
But, if you’re happy with bland, good luck. I have to definitely disagree about the majority of players and DM/GM’s wanting a variety of different stats for various different Races/Species, otherwise it’s just the S.S.D.D. And that leads to stagnation and to falling interest in the game and the fantasy of such, and that will eventually lead to the inevitable collapse of the game.
In total, 2024 is just another 4e washout that will be a lesson WotC and Hasbro want to learn the hard way. The 2024 Monster Manual is an overpriced art book that IMHO, isn’t worth the time or money to deal with.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Oh I'm the exact opposite, I like racial stats for the various races of the game. The idea of reusing the exact same stat and WotC removing racials and special units is the MM with extra steps. I mean if some developers with a unique world views don't want the monsters broken out, racial monsters, heavens putting humanoid and evil where it belongs for monsters used for over 50 years, well compromise and build out the monsters with the name and their abilities, and drop the lore. The concept now is go to the index and try to use their generic human, which its just a wash really. It's a real pain when running Western March using 6E rules, what should be a Drow or Orc for instance doesn't really exist for the encounter and its an incentive not to buy the 2024 MM, which I really wanted to buy but now, no. The argument to use the 5E rules, it doesn't work, they changed the effect CR for the monsters from 5E to 6E and they didn't even give the rules for the new conversion to 6E. I get where you are coming from, but it just fails for what would have been a lot of consumers. You'd think with Hasbro's economic outlook they'd have released a book that applies to a broad audience, this is more of a niche product that doesn't fit the realignment of the Overton window to the medium again. It's a 2020 type of book, not 2025, this design is dead as disco.
Well let me ask. What do you want your orc or your drow to do as a part of the encounter? If you are making a whole orc society, that is a LOT easier to do with 30 or so NPC stat blocks than it is with 3 or 4 "orc" stat blocks, and same with drow. If it is just a one off encounter on the road why can't you use a noble, or a cultist, or a tough and just call that an orc. Why can't you add dark vision to one of those stat blocks and call it a drow? Trying to figure out how this fails narratively. This book will be a lot easier to bring a lot of newer players in and grow the community further.
This book has more monsters in it than any other book they have ever released. These monsters have had their power increased, which even if you were just using 2014 characters, was needed to properly challenge the players according to the 2014 dmg math. I am confused by the complaints of the "direction of the game" when the main direction has been, more options and a rebalancing that brings bursting outliers down and overall power up. A rebalancing that focuses on hitting more and status effects that are more consistent for your party to deal with. For me all of those things massively increase the fun of the game because everything is a little less swingy and I am more able to provide the proper challenges to my players. As a player, my creativity in game will mean more now than the creativity I had just while building the character as there is less work arounds and auto wins against the monsters with the right spell combination.
I find it essential as a DM in determining how much of a “humans are the equivalent of roaches and need to be treated as such” attitude when using orcs and other humanoid type creatures simply because they might very well consider other humanoid creatures as monsters.
Plain jane stats are for the weak, I want the bad guys to be able to remind the heroes that not everyone can save the world, no matter who they are.
Otherwise, that BBEG wouldn’t be called a Big Bad-A** Evil Gorgnard for nothing. You can bet I want stats and lore that makes players go: “Well, today is a good day to die after all, … “ , to really hate that BBEG so much that the players are willing to drive their characters to the brink of oblivion to defeat it, or severely weaken it for others to have a fighting chance.
2024 MM, and the entire 2024 D&D rules set is as bland as tofu on a rice cake with water as the drink. It shows they don’t have a problem with dip-feeding content and are more likely to keep pushing sub-standard material for the foreseeable future.
But, if you’re happy with bland, good luck. I have to definitely disagree about the majority of players and DM/GM’s wanting a variety of different stats for various different Races/Species, otherwise it’s just the S.S.D.D. And that leads to stagnation and to falling interest in the game and the fantasy of such, and that will eventually lead to the inevitable collapse of the game.
In total, 2024 is just another 4e washout that will be a lesson WotC and Hasbro want to learn the hard way. The 2024 Monster Manual is an overpriced art book that IMHO, isn’t worth the time or money to deal with.
Wait so a book that has the monsters having more health, more damage, and having more abilities and status effects that land much more consistently across the board is weak and plain compared to the 2014 MM? I am now really confused by your complaint.
Otherwise, that BBEG wouldn’t be called a Big Bad-A** Evil Gorgnard for nothing. You can bet I want stats and lore that makes players go: “Well, today is a good day to die after all, … “ , to really hate that BBEG so much that the players are willing to drive their characters to the brink of oblivion to defeat it, or severely weaken it for others to have a fighting chance.
Um... it's not like the lore in the 2014 MM accomplished that. It's up to the adventure creator and the DM to make the BBEG's evil plan seem diabolical.
Me as a newbie DM, i feel Like it gets harder and harder to dm with the new Books. Sure my imagination is Good but having official stats for some things they left out would help alot.
Me as a newbie DM, i feel Like it gets harder and harder to dm with the new Books. Sure my imagination is Good but having official stats for some things they left out would help alot.
As someone that runs a bi-weekly workshop through my brick & mortar FLGS for Game Masters -- Here is a piece of free advice for "Newbie DM":
Do not let yourself get trapped by thinking "Official Stats" are the way it is supposed to be. The statblocks offered in any source book; whether it is the Monster Manual by WotC or a compendium of monsters from another publisher -- should be treated as a foundation.
An example I like to use is the Commoner Statblock. A Commoner is nothing more than a generic blank slate for any NPC regardless of species or background but it gives you a solid starting point. Average stats of 10's with no additional modifiers; AC of 10; a very basic 1d4 attack (a club in this case which can and should represent the equivalence of an Improvised Weapon); no additional skill proficiencies. As RAW (Read as Written); it is incredibly boring and a background -- which can be used fine when PC (Player Characters) aren't directly interacting with them -- but shouldn't be used for every single NPC in your game that fits the role of a commoner.
Not everyone is going to be " Human"; so species have an impact on the statblock, whether it is from different sences, innate magical aptitude, or better aptitude at being skillful. Second, everyone is diverse -- while 10's are meant to represent the most common aptitude -- not every person is an exact carbon copy of each other. You should have diversity, by giving this commoner or that common a 12/13 in a stat or two on a whim. You can easily balance it out by giving an inverse to a different stat or two with an 8/9.
To further iterate my example:
Sven the Male Human Commoner spends his days idly daydreaming of life as an adventure but he is lazy. So he doesn't often pursue physical activity but he loves to read. So you give him an 8 in Strength but a 12 in Intelligence. He's still a commoner.
Terri the Female Orc Commoner is an apprentice for a local tool smith. Due to an accident at the forge in which she got hit in the head with a brick of iron -- her master considers her a little slower on the uptake -- but he keeps her employed because of her physical prowess at swinging a forge hammer. You give her a 12/13 in Strength but then give her a 8/9 in Wisdom. She is still a commoner.
While it is great to be familiar with stat blocks; there is nothing "Official" about any of them, as there are a lot of different publishers out there like Kobold Press, DM Lair, etc. The stat blocks present in the Monster Manual should simply be a foundation in which you as a Dungeon Master tweak and change to add flavor and diversity to your game.
Wait so a book that has the monsters having more health, more damage, and having more abilities and status effects that land much more consistently across the board is weak and plain compared to the 2014 MM? I am now really confused by your complaint.
As someone who is familiar with the concepts of building and tweaking monsters in D&D for an extended time, all that was done was to shift the power-creep of 2024 into forcing the monsters to need more abilities and status effects in order to compensate for the unbalanced and poorly designed PC creation system that in 2024 focused on PvP style gaming then actual Role-Playing of individuals that are on an adventure to prevent some plot. So in effect when they boosted the abilities of the monsters, they had to compensate the imbalances by altering other monster stats by lowering certain monster elements in order to prevent an unknown DM/GM from completely destroying a party.
The reason for confusion can only be contributed to the fact that newer players and GM’s are unwilling to actually do the work of configuring their settings based on player PC configuration and are dependent and expecting on the designers to do the work for them. By placing certain creatures into a generic one-size fits all box, and then expecting those creatures to act and perform as PC characters by way of GM fiat is the only way the designers could make the weaker monsters feel more dangerous. It’s the same design philosophy that was used in 4e. While some think that D&D isn’t a game of player vs GM, the developers seem to think it is by taking the creatures that can potentially be the most dangerous and turning them into NPC GM Player Characters that are nothing more than Politically Correct white-washed versions of humanity.
Not every human or humanoid like creature or monster is going to have the same moral compass or values that others have, and it is the lore and history that is being replaced with a generic “best-fit” version that gives zero context for why the lore and history are the way it was. And by the way, people have been taking the lore of a great number of monsters and using that as a means of creating adventures that entail how that “evil” history is what it is. Just as heroes are born to be great, so to must there be an opposing force to make those people who are special just that, otherwise those heroes are no better than the “evil” they seek to prevent it from harming others.
2024 is the 4e revision that many people have been wishing for, and sadly 2024 D&D and all to be created forthwith will be the same bland, broken, and lackluster content and material that has been produced since 2019. Once again, Politically Corrected NPC’s are the result of just plain laziness on the part of the design and development community and the willingness to only listen to a minority of the community that had a problem with “evil” humanoid creatures, monsters, or NPC’s.
The design and development team should be ashamed of what they have allowed, and created in the new edition of D&D, and the community will be the ones who will ultimately decide that D&D is no longer the game it used to be, and will seek out other systems that will fill that need.
The 2024/25Monster Manual is the most pathetic version of the compendium of monsters in the universe of D&D that has ever been written, but that is IMHO a not so great mark of a edition that will last very long, because WotC game development is like an Ai chatbot, garbage in, garbage out. And the last 6 years the garbage has become worst.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
If the book doesn't have staple D&D foes like Orcs and Drow, then it's a monster manual not worth owning.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
Sounds lazy and boring, especially when you could instead just have a variety of different orc and drow type opponents. As we've enjoyed for most of the history of D&D.
Did you not read his second sentence? We ARE getting "a variety of different orc and drow type opponents." And you don't even have to wait, there's a bunch in MPMM.
Me as a newbie DM, i feel Like it gets harder and harder to dm with the new Books. Sure my imagination is Good but having official stats for some things they left out would help alot.
"Things they left out" like what?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is a nice piece of info that is buried in a video called New Constructs blah with only 16k views.
So basically only a few hard core players will ever hear it. It should have been in the monster manual.
I appreciate his advice of "ignore the name Tough" and just look for mechanics and CR that meets the need of the villain|boss|baddie you want.
And I am excited that Drow stuff is coming, I love playing with the stats to see who is stronger, the Drow elite warriors like Zaknafein and Drizzt versus the priestesses vs the mages.
Drawing up and simulating battles with the houses of Menzoberranzan is just a lot of fun.
I would really like to see Drizzt, Jarlaaxle and Artemis with new 2024 high level 5e stats probably around level 16.
The DMG does go into it under Creating a Creature.
Then goes on to give some examples. It doesn't come right out and say "Add species traits" but I guess that is what people need in order to know that they can add traits to make the NPCs fit the desired species.
Also the NPC section refers you to the Creating a Creature section
1) The DMG does say so (thanks Lia for providing the quote.)
2) They do explicitly warn you against adding traits that increase the creature's HP, grant THP, or increase the creature's damage. You can still do so of course.
If you want to ban orcs and drow from being playable and turn them into villainous caricatures at your table feel free. The books don't have to follow your lead when the rest of us clearly don't want that though.
The video came out only a few hours ago. Do you know how YouTube works? BTW it's 17k now.
It's in the DMG as multiple people have said now. The expectation is that DMs read that, especially if they plan on modifying the game.
The DMG says no such thing. It gives examples... none of which are species. In practice, most species are rounding errors, but if you turn your guards into dragonborn, goliath (anything but hill), human (depending on feat), or orc, the result will generally be about CR 1/4.
Those "multiple people" are just people copying each other. Unlike others I have actually read those pages and they are an incredibly bland piece of information just telling you generic instructions on how to create a creature. Completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Let me know if the video goes over 500k, then you have something.
1) Species Traits are Traits.
2) Uh... It's a good thing they explicitly warned you about traits that add damage then, isn't it? On that page? In the book?
Great, you admit it's there. One down!
This is why this is not an issue. You can still do that. So what this comes off as is "I play it this way and I'm mad that everyone else isn't told to play it this way!"
For people mad about lack of drow culture... how many books do you need? There are already hundreds if not thousands out there. A book detailing drow society doesn't need a "D&D 2024" brand on it to be useable in a modern game. I'd rather see new stuff than reprints of material that is already widely known/available. Did you know you can run Dark Sun for 5e? The D&D police will not break down your door for using old material for your campaign settings.
Which brings me to my main point, which is that stats should comprise roughly 1% of how a particular culture/species feels at the table. This is a role-playing game and there is not stat for "mean" or "greedy" or "conniving" or "innocent." Any DM worth their salt should be able to make an encounter with savage bandits feel extremely different from an encounter with disciplined soldiers or insane cultists even if those characters just have a basic-ass stat block limited to attributes and a sword they can swing. Having the word evil at the top of the stat block literally does nothing. It's up to you to portray that. That is how it's always been and that is why this argument is meaningless.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
[REDACTED]
Exactly, and I'll add - they DID promise us more Drow culture in the next FR book, which will include Menzoberranzan Drow statblocks. That will let them place the "evil Drow" in that book in the proper context - they're evil because they worship an evil goddess and do evil things in her name, not merely because they happen to be Drow.
Not to mention, there are still plenty of statblocks with "evil" at the top if that's all you want.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
I'm using my 2024 MM to add to my normal dollar cost averaging investments for the month by not buying it. the MM 2024 was the only 6E book I was going to buy without researching first, but a little itch in my head told me, WotC is going to screw up the book, and make the older books much more useful. And it was right. Hasbro is continuing to use the Disney Star Wars route of writing right now, the culture was never where they were advertising, the same thing going for WotC when they to continue using the same rules for 5E, where's the incentive - less monsters, broken spells, weird writing style? WotC didn't even think to change hold person or charm person.
I get better monsters from AI with proper phrasing than that don't break commonly used spell for 50 years using AI. Tweak here or there, and you are good. Go back to 1E I swear the developers designed monsters for the 1E MM by rolling dice and figuring out how to put the combinations together. You can even have it generate token art as well at the same time depending on the AI model you are using. Just run each step separately and look at the monsters, you'll have something usable and unique. Add a CR to it if you want to limit the CR to your current campaign.
Step 1: Create a list of 100 Greek monsters called [Greek Monsters]
Step 2: Create list of 100 cryptid monsters from all human history [Cryptid Monsters]
Step 3: Create a D&D 5E stat block and D&D 3.5E style description of 3 monsters rolled randomly with a combination from the [Greek Monsters] and [Cryptid Monsters]
1. Wendigo Cyclops
Type: Large Undead, Chaotic Evil
D&D 5E Stat Block:
Traits:
Actions:
3.5E Style Description:
A twisted blend of the Wendigo’s insatiable hunger for human flesh and the ancient power of the Cyclops, this creature has become a terrifying predator of the north. Standing at nearly 15 feet tall, with a single, glaring eye, the Wendigo Cyclops stalks the frozen wilderness, leaving a trail of frozen corpses in its wake. Its howl is said to freeze the blood of those who hear it, and its bite can tear through even the toughest armor.
Oh yes, if the 30 extra pages compared to the '14 MM tell us anything, it's that they just decided to be lazy and cut back on the amount of monster blocks we got. It's not like you can't still use the '14 if you have it; heck, they haven't even taken the '14 core 3 off the market. No one is being deprived here just because they didn't serve a few specific dishes you wanted on this extensive buffet.
Also, who's "we"? I find the specialized NPCs and the setting specific culture writing interesting, but I've been quite content with non species-coded specialized NPCs in encounters as well. If they're that essential to your experience, well and good; you've got several different options on how you can implement them, with more on the way. You can appeal to tradition if you like, but frankly I doubt the majority of players find having orc specific stat blocks in the MM to be particularly essential.
Oh I'm the exact opposite, I like racial stats for the various races of the game. The idea of reusing the exact same stat and WotC removing racials and special units is the MM with extra steps. I mean if some developers with a unique world views don't want the monsters broken out, racial monsters, heavens putting humanoid and evil where it belongs for monsters used for over 50 years, well compromise and build out the monsters with the name and their abilities, and drop the lore. The concept now is go to the index and try to use their generic human, which its just a wash really. It's a real pain when running Western March using 6E rules, what should be a Drow or Orc for instance doesn't really exist for the encounter and its an incentive not to buy the 2024 MM, which I really wanted to buy but now, no. The argument to use the 5E rules, it doesn't work, they changed the effect CR for the monsters from 5E to 6E and they didn't even give the rules for the new conversion to 6E. I get where you are coming from, but it just fails for what would have been a lot of consumers. You'd think with Hasbro's economic outlook they'd have released a book that applies to a broad audience, this is more of a niche product that doesn't fit the realignment of the Overton window to the medium again. It's a 2020 type of book, not 2025, this design is dead as disco.
I find it essential as a DM in determining how much of a “humans are the equivalent of roaches and need to be treated as such” attitude when using orcs and other humanoid type creatures simply because they might very well consider other humanoid creatures as monsters.
Plain jane stats are for the weak, I want the bad guys to be able to remind the heroes that not everyone can save the world, no matter who they are.
Otherwise, that BBEG wouldn’t be called a Big Bad-A** Evil Gorgnard for nothing. You can bet I want stats and lore that makes players go: “Well, today is a good day to die after all, … “ , to really hate that BBEG so much that the players are willing to drive their characters to the brink of oblivion to defeat it, or severely weaken it for others to have a fighting chance.
2024 MM, and the entire 2024 D&D rules set is as bland as tofu on a rice cake with water as the drink. It shows they don’t have a problem with dip-feeding content and are more likely to keep pushing sub-standard material for the foreseeable future.
But, if you’re happy with bland, good luck. I have to definitely disagree about the majority of players and DM/GM’s wanting a variety of different stats for various different Races/Species, otherwise it’s just the S.S.D.D. And that leads to stagnation and to falling interest in the game and the fantasy of such, and that will eventually lead to the inevitable collapse of the game.
In total, 2024 is just another 4e washout that will be a lesson WotC and Hasbro want to learn the hard way. The 2024 Monster Manual is an overpriced art book that IMHO, isn’t worth the time or money to deal with.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Well let me ask. What do you want your orc or your drow to do as a part of the encounter? If you are making a whole orc society, that is a LOT easier to do with 30 or so NPC stat blocks than it is with 3 or 4 "orc" stat blocks, and same with drow. If it is just a one off encounter on the road why can't you use a noble, or a cultist, or a tough and just call that an orc. Why can't you add dark vision to one of those stat blocks and call it a drow? Trying to figure out how this fails narratively. This book will be a lot easier to bring a lot of newer players in and grow the community further.
This book has more monsters in it than any other book they have ever released. These monsters have had their power increased, which even if you were just using 2014 characters, was needed to properly challenge the players according to the 2014 dmg math. I am confused by the complaints of the "direction of the game" when the main direction has been, more options and a rebalancing that brings bursting outliers down and overall power up. A rebalancing that focuses on hitting more and status effects that are more consistent for your party to deal with. For me all of those things massively increase the fun of the game because everything is a little less swingy and I am more able to provide the proper challenges to my players. As a player, my creativity in game will mean more now than the creativity I had just while building the character as there is less work arounds and auto wins against the monsters with the right spell combination.
Wait so a book that has the monsters having more health, more damage, and having more abilities and status effects that land much more consistently across the board is weak and plain compared to the 2014 MM? I am now really confused by your complaint.
Um... it's not like the lore in the 2014 MM accomplished that. It's up to the adventure creator and the DM to make the BBEG's evil plan seem diabolical.
Me as a newbie DM, i feel Like it gets harder and harder to dm with the new Books. Sure my imagination is Good but having official stats for some things they left out would help alot.
As someone that runs a bi-weekly workshop through my brick & mortar FLGS for Game Masters -- Here is a piece of free advice for "Newbie DM":
Do not let yourself get trapped by thinking "Official Stats" are the way it is supposed to be. The statblocks offered in any source book; whether it is the Monster Manual by WotC or a compendium of monsters from another publisher -- should be treated as a foundation.
An example I like to use is the Commoner Statblock. A Commoner is nothing more than a generic blank slate for any NPC regardless of species or background but it gives you a solid starting point. Average stats of 10's with no additional modifiers; AC of 10; a very basic 1d4 attack (a club in this case which can and should represent the equivalence of an Improvised Weapon); no additional skill proficiencies. As RAW (Read as Written); it is incredibly boring and a background -- which can be used fine when PC (Player Characters) aren't directly interacting with them -- but shouldn't be used for every single NPC in your game that fits the role of a commoner.
Not everyone is going to be " Human"; so species have an impact on the statblock, whether it is from different sences, innate magical aptitude, or better aptitude at being skillful. Second, everyone is diverse -- while 10's are meant to represent the most common aptitude -- not every person is an exact carbon copy of each other. You should have diversity, by giving this commoner or that common a 12/13 in a stat or two on a whim. You can easily balance it out by giving an inverse to a different stat or two with an 8/9.
To further iterate my example:
Sven the Male Human Commoner spends his days idly daydreaming of life as an adventure but he is lazy. So he doesn't often pursue physical activity but he loves to read. So you give him an 8 in Strength but a 12 in Intelligence. He's still a commoner.
Terri the Female Orc Commoner is an apprentice for a local tool smith. Due to an accident at the forge in which she got hit in the head with a brick of iron -- her master considers her a little slower on the uptake -- but he keeps her employed because of her physical prowess at swinging a forge hammer. You give her a 12/13 in Strength but then give her a 8/9 in Wisdom. She is still a commoner.
While it is great to be familiar with stat blocks; there is nothing "Official" about any of them, as there are a lot of different publishers out there like Kobold Press, DM Lair, etc. The stat blocks present in the Monster Manual should simply be a foundation in which you as a Dungeon Master tweak and change to add flavor and diversity to your game.
They/Them/It/Its
Swing a Stick at a Slime and See!
As someone who is familiar with the concepts of building and tweaking monsters in D&D for an extended time, all that was done was to shift the power-creep of 2024 into forcing the monsters to need more abilities and status effects in order to compensate for the unbalanced and poorly designed PC creation system that in 2024 focused on PvP style gaming then actual Role-Playing of individuals that are on an adventure to prevent some plot.
So in effect when they boosted the abilities of the monsters, they had to compensate the imbalances by altering other monster stats by lowering certain monster elements in order to prevent an unknown DM/GM from completely destroying a party.
The reason for confusion can only be contributed to the fact that newer players and GM’s are unwilling to actually do the work of configuring their settings based on player PC configuration and are dependent and expecting on the designers to do the work for them.
By placing certain creatures into a generic one-size fits all box, and then expecting those creatures to act and perform as PC characters by way of GM fiat is the only way the designers could make the weaker monsters feel more dangerous. It’s the same design philosophy that was used in 4e.
While some think that D&D isn’t a game of player vs GM, the developers seem to think it is by taking the creatures that can potentially be the most dangerous and turning them into NPC GM Player Characters that are nothing more than Politically Correct white-washed versions of humanity.
Not every human or humanoid like creature or monster is going to have the same moral compass or values that others have, and it is the lore and history that is being replaced with a generic “best-fit” version that gives zero context for why the lore and history are the way it was.
And by the way, people have been taking the lore of a great number of monsters and using that as a means of creating adventures that entail how that “evil” history is what it is. Just as heroes are born to be great, so to must there be an opposing force to make those people who are special just that, otherwise those heroes are no better than the “evil” they seek to prevent it from harming others.
2024 is the 4e revision that many people have been wishing for, and sadly 2024 D&D and all to be created forthwith will be the same bland, broken, and lackluster content and material that has been produced since 2019.
Once again, Politically Corrected NPC’s are the result of just plain laziness on the part of the design and development community and the willingness to only listen to a minority of the community that had a problem with “evil” humanoid creatures, monsters, or NPC’s.
The design and development team should be ashamed of what they have allowed, and created in the new edition of D&D, and the community will be the ones who will ultimately decide that D&D is no longer the game it used to be, and will seek out other systems that will fill that need.
The 2024/25Monster Manual is the most pathetic version of the compendium of monsters in the universe of D&D that has ever been written, but that is IMHO a not so great mark of a edition that will last very long, because WotC game development is like an Ai chatbot, garbage in, garbage out. And the last 6 years the garbage has become worst.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Did you not read his second sentence? We ARE getting "a variety of different orc and drow type opponents." And you don't even have to wait, there's a bunch in MPMM.
"Things they left out" like what?