D&D (2024) More D&D 2024 Tidbits: Aasimar, Goliaths, Town-Eating Gelatinous Cubes

Here are a few more tidbits from Game Informer's magazine coverage of the new edition's rulebooks.

• Iconic characters like Bobby the Barbarian, or Raistlin and Caramon Majere feature in the art.
• Each class and each subclass has its own piece of art.
• Species now include Aasimar, Goliath, and Orc.
• Bastions are in--player built bases.
• Greyhawk is the sample setting in the Dungeon Master's Guide.
• Each book is 384 pages.

Monster Manual

• 75 new monsters in the Monster Manual; over 500 in total.
• Challenge rating remains the same.
• There are some new lower challenge vampires, and a higher challenge one called the Nightbringer.
• Blob of Annihilation is a gelatinous cube that can eat towns.
• Elemental Juggernaut, Archhag.

 

[Azzy]

That's what I've been doing for my homebrew since at least 2E - I had an Animalfolk race and from that you could make just about any sort of animal themed humanoid you wanted. They are a sort of fey, so you don't generally have villages of just turtlefolk or dovefolk or whatever, they would be all mixed together - giraffefolk, tigerfolk, ravenfolk, etc. all in one place and intermingling, though some subgroups might veer towards certain occupations, social groups or whatnot. For example, the giraffefolk might lean towards being city guards, the ravenfolk have noble families in the city, while the tigerfolk make up most of the local clergy and the boarfolk have formed a crime syndicate who bully protection money from the local mousefolk shopkeepers.

Sounds very modern anime (and that's not a bad thing, IMO), with all sorts of beastfolk types occupying the same community.

 

[Stormonu]

Sounds very modern anime (and that's not a bad thing, IMO), with all sorts of beastfolk types occupying the same community.

Actually, it was influenced by the likes of Redwall (published 1986)

 

[mamba]

Why would you be looking up pit fiends while having nothing to do with devils? How would you even know anything about pit fiends without knowing anything about devils?

because the adventure has an encounter with pit fiends but does not provide the stat block, so you need to look it up

And the old system, IMO, was a good idea and is not improved by what they're doing now, so from my perspective your principle, however reasonable in general it may be, does not apply here. Just because a system is new doesn't mean it's an improvement on the old one.

it being new or old has nothing at all to do with whether it is better, agreed, which is why the argument that 'we have always done it this way' does not hold much credence with me

Why? What's the benefit of changing the organization after all this time? Everyone prior to MMOTM, including what is likely the majority of 5e fans, knows the old way. What does anyone get from changing it?

easier for new players, no downside for older players. I want everything alphabetical, no exceptions, this way I do not have to think twice about where a monster entry is, and everyone who instinctively knows to look under D for half the monsters out there (dragons, devils, demons, ...) easily understands alphabetical too

 

[Faolyn]

Why would you be looking up pit fiends while having nothing to do with devils? How would you even know anything about pit fiends without knowing anything about devils?

In this particular case, because you might remember that pit fiends are really powerful fiends but forget if they're demons or devils. I honestly always have to think for a second to remember the difference between pit fiends and balors.

In a case like dragons, there's the problem of them grouping chromatic and metallic dragons separately, which can be slightly annoying when you have to go to the middle of the dragon section in order to get to the brass dragon, instead of towards the beginning, right after blue dragons.

That being said, all you really need is a good index. And consistency in naming monsters. If they're going to have "dragon, blue" then they shouldn't suddenly have "purple dragon" in another book.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I’m glad that Aasimar are getting added. I’m currently playing an Aasimar, so I’m interested to see if they just use the Monsters of the Multiverse stats or create a new version (the 4th in 5e) as a mirror of the 2024 Tiefling race. A Couatl, Guardinal, or Archon descended Aasimar with animal features could be cool. Aasimar don’t have a real “core” visual or lore identity, so this could be a great way to try and make them as iconic as Tieflings.

I’m also excited for the new powerful monsters. 5e has always been lacking in more powerful monsters. Anyone remember back when there were no monster stat blocks between CR 24 and 30? It always seemed strange to me that the Monster Manual didn’t have monsters of every challenge rating. Hopefully the new one fixes that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What does anyone lose by changing it?

Ease of use for anyone who entered the game prior to MMotM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

because the adventure has an encounter with pit fiends but does not provide the stat block, so you need to look it up


it being new or old has nothing at all to do with whether it is better, agreed, which is why the argument that 'we have always done it this way' does not hold much credence with me


easier for new players, no downside for older players. I want everything alphabetical, no exceptions, this way I do not have to think twice about where a monster entry is, and everyone who instinctively knows to look under D for half the monsters out there (dragons, devils, demons, ...) easily understands alphabetical too

Except under the new way there is no demon or devil entry, so you have no way of figuring out what creatures are appropriate monsters for the Abyss without going through the whole list. So its not great for hypothetical new players either.

 

[mamba]

Except under the new way there is no demon or devil entry, so you have no way of figuring out what creatures are appropriate monsters for the Abyss without going through the whole list. So its not great for hypothetical new players either.

that is why I would have a table by type, just like we have ones by terrain

 

[Micah Sweet]

In this particular case, because you might remember that pit fiends are really powerful fiends but forget if they're demons or devils. I honestly always have to think for a second to remember the difference between pit fiends and balors.

In a case like dragons, there's the problem of them grouping chromatic and metallic dragons separately, which can be slightly annoying when you have to go to the middle of the dragon section in order to get to the brass dragon, instead of towards the beginning, right after blue dragons.

That being said, all you really need is a good index. And consistency in naming monsters. If they're going to have "dragon, blue" then they shouldn't suddenly have "purple dragon" in another book.

No they shouldn't. What was wrong with "dragon, purple"? You look under "dragon". When I got new monster books I used to love going to specific sections to see if any new dragons or demons or devils or giants or golem etc had been added to the game. That joy is gone under this system.

 

[Micah Sweet]

that is why I would have a table by type, just like we have ones by terrain

Do they have such?