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.

 

[Parmandur]

Let us pray, pray, pray that they in now way whatsoever resemble the godawful UA we saw. Those were bad on just about every level, but to be fair to WotC, that's probably exactly the feedback they got, given they didn't seem very well-received. How much they've changed and how will be a very interesting demonstration of how much WotC actually listens to the feedback they solicit.

A handful of posters on the boards ≠ the feedback WotC receives. No doubt there will be differences and changes, but I wouldn't assume the feedback leaned one way or the other (I wad indifferent, myself).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A handful of posters on the boards ≠ the feedback WotC receives. No doubt there will be differences and changes, but I wouldn't assume the feedback leaned one way or the other (I wad indifferent, myself).

I know you always say this, but there's never been a time when the feedback here was significantly at odds with the feedback WotC said they received. What frequently has happened is WotC simply hasn't talked about the feedback they received, so we just don't know, but at odds? Nah. Whether they listened and formulated a sensible response will be interesting. It was undeniable more game-y than literally any system in 4E (level requirements for a tavern lol - high ones too!).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Thinking on Monsters.

I think the Ultraloth is too low of a CR for something that's supposed to be on the same level as a Pit Fiend or Balor (yes I know PS had a more powerful Baernaloth). But I guess they could have 2 Ultraloth statblocks, one "normal" CR 13 Ultraloth and a CR 20 Ultraloth Overlord.

Fiends above CR 20 tend to be named Demon Lords and Archdevils, which may or may not be in the new MM.

Generic Humanoid NPCs there needs to be some endgame versions of them, like CR 20 Master Archmages or Supreme Warlords.

And I guess pulling in some ideas from the 3e Epic Level Handbook, despite how I felt about a lot of them might be good in this context. Though I have no idea what an Endgame Beast (based on the problem of how any Beast that's too magical ends up being a Monstrosity) would be like.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Thinking on Monsters.

I think the Ultraloth is too low of a CR for something that's supposed to be on the same level as a Pit Fiend or Balor (yes I know PS ). But I guess they could have 2 Ultraloth statblocks, one "normal" CR 13 Ultraloth and a CR 20 Ultraloth Overlord.

Fiends above CR 20 tend to be named Demon Lords and Archdevils, which may or may not be in the new MM.

Generic Humanoid NPCs there needs to be some endgame versions of them, like CR 20 Master Archmages or Supreme Warlords.

And I guess pulling in some ideas from the 3e Epic Level Handbook, despite how I felt about a lot of them might be good in this context. Though I have no idea what an Endgame Beast (based on the problem of how any Beast that's too magical ends up being a Monstrosity) would be like.

Yeah I'm hoping they have two Ultraloths here. I do love a good Ultraloth. They're one of the more fun evil lower planes types.

 

[Parmandur]

I know you always say this, but there's never been a time when the feedback here was significantly at odds with the feedback WotC said they received. What frequently has happened is WotC simply hasn't talked about the feedback they received, so we just don't know, but at odds? Nah. Whether they listened and formulated a sensible response will be interesting. It was undeniable more game-y than literally any system in 4E (level requirements for a tavern lol - high ones too!).

That does not match the history of UA reception in my recollwction: the discourse here is completely orthogonal what WotC reports as to results.

 

[Parmandur]

Thinking on Monsters.

I think the Ultraloth is too low of a CR for something that's supposed to be on the same level as a Pit Fiend or Balor (yes I know PS had a more powerful Baernaloth). But I guess they could have 2 Ultraloth statblocks, one "normal" CR 13 Ultraloth and a CR 20 Ultraloth Overlord.

Fiends above CR 20 tend to be named Demon Lords and Archdevils, which may or may not be in the new MM.

Generic Humanoid NPCs there needs to be some endgame versions of them, like CR 20 Master Archmages or Supreme Warlords.

And I guess pulling in some ideas from the 3e Epic Level Handbook, despite how I felt about a lot of them might be good in this context. Though I have no idea what an Endgame Beast (based on the problem of how any Beast that's too magical ends up being a Monstrosity) would be like.

One thing they committed to for the MM early on was that all 14 Xreature types will be viable at all Levels.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That does not match the history of UA reception in my recollwction: the discourse here is completely orthogonal what WotC reports as to results.

Nah mate. I can't even think of a time it was. But maybe it's all in our own perceptions?

 

[Parmandur]

Nah mate. I can't even think of a time it was. But maybe it's all in our own perceptions?

Perceptions are funny. Butno, I have not seen any relation to what people say here or on other voards and what the reported results indicate.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Perceptions are funny. Butno, I have not seen any relation to what people say here or on other voards and what the reported results indicate.

I can, and I can absolutely give specific examples, because I remember a lot of times WotC absolutely did exactly what people on here were saying - for example, people thought the 2024 Thief thing where they only got SA once per round (rather than per turn) was dumb as hell here, and WotC changed it. People generally but not overwhelmingly didn't like the "generic forms" approach to the 2024 Druid and WotC reported exactly that, that people didn't hate the idea but also disliked it enough they needed a different approach. Several subclasses that got cut it was completely unsurprising that they did given the response here - the 2024 Brawler Fighter for example - even people here who liked it, like me, found the mechanics pretty bad, and most people didn't like it, and lo and behold, WotC cut it. I could go on and on.

And that's just 2024, but this holds for a lot longer than that. The Mystic, for example, people had a lot of ludicrous and ill-formed objections to, objections which really would apply to any class of a "full caster"-ish kind (as I always say, if Wizard or Bard or Druid hadn't already been a 5E class, and WotC tried to add it, it would 100% definitely have failed to meet the 70% approval threshold), and WotC reported back that this was exactly the sort of thing people were concerned about.

But there have been a lot of other times where WotC have been less clear. Like, they cut a bunch of stuff from Strixhaven, but they also didn't claim it was because of the 70% threshold or anything, and given people generally seemed to like the stuff they cut, I rather suspect it wasn't, but rather was cut for length/complexity (which is ok, I mean it's their game to make mistakes with, but different).

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Anyone also notice the Haragon in that Silver Dragon art? Makes me wonder if their solution to the Ardlings identity issues was to split it in two, the papa Aasimar for the celestial aspect, and mama beastkin for the Furry species, then take a bunch of furry races like Haragon, Tortles, etc..., and turn them into lineages.

Anyways a reminder of what the OG Ardling's Celestial Legacy was like:

" Exalted. The fierce passions of Arborea, the heroic heart of Ysgard, and the wondrous nature of the Beastlands call to ardlings who have the Exalted celestial legacy. Their celestial ancestors are heroic champions of the Chaotic Good planes. (Gain Thaumaturgy, 3rd level Divine Favour, 5th Lesser Restoration)

Heavenly. The blissful harmony of Arcadia, the unwavering justice of Mount Celestia, and the bucolic paradise of Bytopia touch the souls of ardlings who have the Heavenly celestial legacy. Their celestial ancestors are staunch defenders of the Lawful Good planes. (Light, 3rd Cure Wounds, 5th Zone of Truth)

Idyllic. The Idyllic celestial legacy connects ardlings not only to the Beastlands and Bytopia but also to the eternal compassion of Elysium. Their celestial ancestors are paragons of kindness who hail from the Neutral Good planes. (Guidiance, 3rd Healing Word, 5th Animal Messanger)" The animal stuff does not apply to the Aasimar.

They might add a resistance to each of these, Lightening to Exalted, Acid to Heavenly, and Cold to Idyllic.

They might dump Angelic Flight for Darkvision, not sure, but I think they will keep the Radiant Resistance univeral.