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.

D&D_50th_Wallpaper_Desktop-1920x1080.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad





Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I'm sure Crawford said they were gonna fix this?
What he said was that they were going to fix the encounter building guidelines. Monster CRs have to remain the same to preserve compatibility with existing adventures, but the advice for how many monsters of what CR to use to build a “balanced encounter” can be changed. And, it sounded to me like the focus of this fix was really more on usability than balance.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
If they are considered optional, it makes sense to put them in the DMG, but I don't feel it makes a huge difference. The important news, IMO, is that their presence is confirmed.
It matters to me, as I prefer to leave the PHB rules as untouched by my homebrew as possible. Whereas, anything in the DMG I consider fair game to hack and house rule to my heart’s content. A system for player bases seems like the kind of thing I’m unlikely to be satisfied with as-written (especially if the Bastions UA was any indication of what the system will look like), so I would much prefer it not be in the PHB.
 


Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
It matters to me, as I prefer to leave the PHB rules as untouched by my homebrew as possible. Whereas, anything in the DMG I consider fair game to hack and house rule to my heart’s content. A system for player bases seems like the kind of thing I’m unlikely to be satisfied with as-written (especially if the Bastions UA was any indication of what the system will look like), so I would much prefer it not be in the PHB.
An interesting perspective. Personally, I consider the whole of the rules fair game for hacking, but I can see the player-facing material being considered differently.
 

Kurotowa

Legend
An interesting perspective. Personally, I consider the whole of the rules fair game for hacking, but I can see the player-facing material being considered differently.
At least as a general thing, the PHB rules are core elements that lots of other features tie into, while the DMG rules are optional modules that can be plugged in or out more easily. If you change how grappling or concentration works, it has knock on effects for classes and feats and spells that rely on those rules. If you change how Bastions or Factions work, it's self-contained and doesn't impact any of the major player-facing rules elements.

So wanting to mess with the PHB rules as little as possible makes a lot of sense to me.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top