TheRPGSite

What happens when you have a gang of idiots, who can't understand myth of archetypes, designing a new Monster Manual? That's what 2024 D&D will demonstrate

But it will have 500+ Kewl Monsters!!!!!!

In D&D6e you defeat the monsters by misgendering them...

It was a given wotc was going to fuck this up. But who would have expected this level of stupid even from them.

Can't wait to see the art from this turkey. Probably going to be full of smiling gentle "monsters" of indeterminate gender. To solve the riddle of the sphinx you will have to correctly identify its pronouns.

Are they going to add a "Transosphinx" to the Gynosphinx and Androsphinx?

Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 11, 2025, 08:26:38 AMCan't wait to see the art from this turkey. Probably going to be full of smiling gentle "monsters" of indeterminate gender. To solve the riddle of the sphinx you will have to correctly identify its pronouns.

The 2024 DMG had an art style that was different from (and, IMO, quite a bit better than) that used in the 2024 PHB, so there's still a possibility that the 2024 MM art will not be bad.

Isn't it the marxist/commie plan to destroy the culture from within first, after they turn people into queers and dumb I mean......all these major franchises from star wars to everything are being destroyed on purpose...I don't think these companies can be that dumb to destroy themselves. I don't know people need to look into it.

I mean if you look at the stats and how these abominations to God Almighty live their lives....One trannie on tiktok just had their ribs removed to make their waist smaller said they will make a crown out of it...did you excpect anything better with these people's books.

• Transgender "women" are nearly 49 times more likely than the general population to contract HIV. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.Com/2p8mh9jd)

• Transgenders have higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, mental health disorders, incarceration, homelessness, and unemployment. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.Com/y9xbdqod)

• Within the last 12 months (Copyright 2015), 65% of younger transgender youth had seriously considered suicide, more than a third had attempted suicide at least once. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.Com/3jc6e5s4)

• Transexual persons, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.Com/4zpbmrcb)

If what Pundit says is true, D&D is morphing from a game about adventuring into a game about cosplaying adventurers. Instead of Conan cracking skulls, it's renfaire nerds merely pretending to kill the monsters *wink wink* when behind the scenes it's just a dude in a suit and they all eat chicken strips at the company cafeteria after the last show is over. I mean, wtf...

This is an area I'm disagreeing on Pundit with. The introduction of "Male" medusae and "male" dryads and the like is only being done in terms of the Art. The Medusae stat block doesn't have a separate male and female entry. The only difference being, the art entry for the Meduase Statblock shows a male and female Meduase.

The biggest thing about the 2025 Monster Manual, is that there's a new way of Calculating Challenge Rating which has led to the Monster being stronger overall.

One of the largest complaints about 5th edition, was Monsters being too weak, particularly at higher levels. As has been revealed, the way CR was calculated in the 2014 edition, was the maximum output a monster was capable of, if everything was in their favor.

This has been changed, and in response as has been seen in the previews being released... Monsters in the 2024 edition have more "Bite" to them.

I love ya Pundit, but this really is a nothing burger.

Why would anyone expect there to be separate statblocks by sex?  Monsters with enough dimorphism to need separate stats for male and female are very rare.  And messing with the CRs is irrelevant when it comes to mucking around with the monsters by adding new sexes that they oughtn't have.

Quote from: easywolf32 on January 11, 2025, 12:01:24 PMIsn't it the marxist/commie plan to destroy the culture from within first, after they turn people into queers and dumb I mean......all these major franchises from star wars to everything are being destroyed on purpose...I don't think these companies can be that dumb to destroy themselves. I don't know people need to look into it.

You'd be appalled to learn just how abysmally stupid big companies are. And this is nothing new. Marketing is near always behind this and pushing whatever "trendy" thing with a zeal that would make cultists weep with respect.

And with each wave of this moral busybodying, marketing sooner or later latches onto it and pushes harder and harder.

Hey Bjorn, is that a male Medusa or a female one?
Don't know, let me look...

They probably want male and female versions of all these monsters so that they can make them player races in future supplements.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 12, 2025, 11:19:54 AMThey probably want male and female versions of all these monsters so that they can make them player races in future supplements.

For some of the monsters, this is quite possibly correct. The other reason is that, unlike in mythology, few of these monsters are unique beings in D&D, and having two genders is an easy & obvious path to have a population of the monsters rather than a cursed/created individual.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 12, 2025, 12:08:40 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 12, 2025, 11:19:54 AMThey probably want male and female versions of all these monsters so that they can make them player races in future supplements.

For some of the monsters, this is quite possibly correct. The other reason is that, unlike in mythology, few of these monsters are unique beings in D&D, and having two genders is an easy & obvious path to have a population of the monsters rather than a cursed/created individual.

So they're retconning the monster backstories again? Jhc, I wish they'd make up their darn minds and stick to it

Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 11, 2025, 08:26:38 AMCan't wait to see the art from this turkey. Probably going to be full of smiling gentle "monsters" of indeterminate gender. To solve the riddle of the sphinx you will have to correctly identify its pronouns.

The art they've shown so far is HORRIBLE. It's what you said above, plus a bunch of cartoony cutesy-poo garbage.

Quote from: easywolf32 on January 11, 2025, 01:41:38 PMI mean if you look at the stats and how these abominations to God Almighty live their lives....One trannie on tiktok just had their ribs removed to make their waist smaller said they will make a crown out of it...did you excpect anything better with these people's books.

• Transgender "women" are nearly 49 times more likely than the general population to contract HIV. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.Com/2p8mh9jd)

• Transgenders have higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, mental health disorders, incarceration, homelessness, and unemployment. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.Com/y9xbdqod)

• Within the last 12 months (Copyright 2015), 65% of younger transgender youth had seriously considered suicide, more than a third had attempted suicide at least once. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.Com/3jc6e5s4)

• Transexual persons, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.Com/4zpbmrcb)

This is an off-topic post. You need to stay on the subject of the Monster Manual. Failing to do so can lead to sanctions.

Quote from: Orphan81 on January 11, 2025, 03:43:56 PMThe biggest thing about the 2025 Monster Manual, is that there's a new way of Calculating Challenge Rating which has led to the Monster being stronger overall.

One of the largest complaints about 5th edition, was Monsters being too weak, particularly at higher levels. As has been revealed, the way CR was calculated in the 2014 edition, was the maximum output a monster was capable of, if everything was in their favor.

This could have been done with a simple PDF download (and been done years ago). Adjusting CR isn't a good enough reason for buying an entirely new book.

A new Monster Manual I, for the game you already own; needs to be a noticeable improvement, upon the original Monster Manual I.  Otherwise, it's simply not necessary.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 13, 2025, 06:52:45 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 11, 2025, 08:26:38 AMCan't wait to see the art from this turkey. Probably going to be full of smiling gentle "monsters" of indeterminate gender. To solve the riddle of the sphinx you will have to correctly identify its pronouns.

The art they've shown so far is HORRIBLE. It's what you said above, plus a bunch of cartoony cutesy-poo garbage.

Which ones? Everything I can find looks...fine. Certainly better than the art I've seen from the PHB and DMG, and I'd call it an upgrade on average from the 2014 MM art.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/so-much-art-from-the-2025-monster-manual.709490/
https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/new-dnd-monster-manual/

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 14, 2025, 08:03:41 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 13, 2025, 06:52:45 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 11, 2025, 08:26:38 AMCan't wait to see the art from this turkey. Probably going to be full of smiling gentle "monsters" of indeterminate gender. To solve the riddle of the sphinx you will have to correctly identify its pronouns.

The art they've shown so far is HORRIBLE. It's what you said above, plus a bunch of cartoony cutesy-poo garbage.

Which ones? Everything I can find looks...fine. Certainly better than the art I've seen from the PHB and DMG, and I'd call it an upgrade on average from the 2014 MM art.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/so-much-art-from-the-2025-monster-manual.709490/
https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/new-dnd-monster-manual/

Hmm. I have to say I hadn't seen some of those, and I'm surprised to say there's some fairly good art there. But those don't seem to show most of the cutesy-poo crap I've also seen. Clearly some multi-level marketing is going on; places more likely to have normal gamers are showing a bunch of admittedly good fantasy art, and X/reddit/etc is showing the tumblr art garbage.

I don't like the 5e D&D art, in general, but it's difficult to articulate why. A lot of the pieces I don't like are well executed, and I think the artists are skilled. So why don't I like the art? I think it's the style/look that bothers me. Everything has a kind of digital/computer art clarity or "sheen" to it that leaves me unmoved, or turns me off completely.

The only piece from the links, above, that made me stop and go "oh, that's kinda cool" and take a closer look was the "bone fiend." That's the best of the bunch, in my opinion.

Edited to add: "hags" is the second best of the bunch.

Well in Players handbook 2014 the art is almost all straight on static poses. Dull. In the DMs Guide its better with a bit of action and at least two bits with nice angles. What I don't like is they reproduced art a few times. I'm thinking specifically of the goblins on pg 107 of the DMs guide which also appeared on pg 15 in Phandelin and Below and pg 19 of Storm King's Thunder. It's a nice piece of art but WotC has too much money to be pulling that.

While female satyr are a ludicrous abomination, this is not their first appearance in 5.X.  The "monsters of the multiverse" in 2022 included them as a player race, with a large art of a female satyr, and this is where 5.X retconned them to being sexed creatures instead of fey that appear as, or are, male (I think they haven't really been Greek satyrs for a longer time).

So from 5.0 launch to 2022 they were, more or less, correct. 

The others I believe are newly ruined in 5.5.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 14, 2025, 09:23:30 PMI don't like the 5e D&D art, in general, but it's difficult to articulate why. A lot of the pieces I don't like are well executed, and I think the artists are skilled. So why don't I like the art? I think it's the style/look that bothers me. Everything has a kind of digital/computer art clarity or "sheen" to it that leaves me unmoved, or turns me off completely.
..,

Leaves me completely cold as well.

Too much of a 'modern' look; like they were meant to be the concept art for a video game, or an animated series.

It's like they were trying so hard to make the monsters look 'cool', that they forgot to make them creatures that the PC's are supposed to be afraid of.

A good comparison would be to look at the 25 'balor' art, and compare it to Alan Lee's balrog pieces.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 14, 2025, 08:03:41 AMhttps://www.enworld.org/threads/so-much-art-from-the-2025-monster-manual.709490/
https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/new-dnd-monster-manual/

Wow, this is the "good" art? Certainly not to my taste I guess. One piece didn't make me wince.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 14, 2025, 09:23:30 PMI don't like the 5e D&D art, in general, but it's difficult to articulate why. A lot of the pieces I don't like are well executed, and I think the artists are skilled. So why don't I like the art? I think it's the style/look that bothers me. Everything has a kind of digital/computer art clarity or "sheen" to it that leaves me unmoved, or turns me off completely.

The only piece from the links, above, that made me stop and go "oh, that's kinda cool" and take a closer look was the "bone fiend." That's the best of the bunch, in my opinion.

Edited to add: "hags" is the second best of the bunch.

Yeah, there's something off. Or missing. Complete lack of soul. The composition is weird too, with nothing in particular drawing the eye.

Quote from: Venka on January 15, 2025, 12:10:24 AMWhile female satyr are a ludicrous abomination, this is not their first appearance in 5.X.  The "monsters of the multiverse" in 2022 included them as a player race, with a large art of a female satyr, and this is where 5.X retconned them to being sexed creatures instead of fey that appear as, or are, male (I think they haven't really been Greek satyrs for a longer time).

So from 5.0 launch to 2022 they were, more or less, correct. 

The others I believe are newly ruined in 5.5.

To be fair, a lot of that started as early as 3e. I remember seeing one of the MMs had an entry for male Medusas who were bald and could either petrify or poison (I forget which) people with their arrows.

I also recall them using faun for a female satyr.

The point is, 5e is only when it really started getting pushed in your face, but WotC has been doing this sort of stuff with D&D for as long as it's owned it.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 14, 2025, 09:20:42 PMHmm. I have to say I hadn't seen some of those, and I'm surprised to say there's some fairly good art there. But those don't seem to show most of the cutesy-poo crap I've also seen. Clearly some multi-level marketing is going on; places more likely to have normal gamers are showing a bunch of admittedly good fantasy art, and X/reddit/etc is showing the tumblr art garbage.

I wouldn't put it past them. I don't use social media, but everything I can find from googling is pretty consistent. Personally, I don't see much problem with having a couple of "cute" monsters in the book. That's been there since at least third edition. As long as they're firmly in the minority, a few less threatening creatures round out the world and provide contrast to the traditionally monstrous ones.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 14, 2025, 09:23:30 PMI don't like the 5e D&D art, in general, but it's difficult to articulate why. A lot of the pieces I don't like are well executed, and I think the artists are skilled. So why don't I like the art? I think it's the style/look that bothers me. Everything has a kind of digital/computer art clarity or "sheen" to it that leaves me unmoved, or turns me off completely.

Funny I have opposite problem with it. Particularly with the 2014 5e books, there's a "smudgy" quality to the artwork which I assume was a decision made in the layout/printing process. They also seem to have intentionally muted the colors, and to me it just prevents the illustrations from popping off the page. Personal taste, I guess.
 

Quote from: Jaeger on January 15, 2025, 02:01:47 AMA good comparison would be to look at the 25 'balor' art, and compare it to Alan Lee's balrog pieces.

Not a lot of artists are going to come up well when compared to Alan Lee.

There have been female satyrs in art for centuries. While not part of Greek myth, European artists invented satyresses. I recall reading one source that conflated them with maenads.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 15, 2025, 09:36:18 AMThere have been female satyrs in art for centuries. While not part of Greek myth, European artists invented satyresses. I recall reading one source that conflated them with maenads.

But were they born female?

In any case, these monsters are too far removed from their mythological origins for their names to make sense anymore. Rename them to something more appropriate: stonegaze snakehair, wood sprite, evil old folks, goat men, bullhead, etc.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 15, 2025, 09:36:18 AMThere have been female satyrs in art for centuries. While not part of Greek myth, European artists invented satyresses. I recall reading one source that conflated them with maenads.

Maenads were part of greek myth, but they were human women driven to madness by Dionysus.

Female satyrs were a creation of renaissance artists in the 16th century, testing the bounds of creativity. They were never part of legend or folklore.

Baptism of Fire has proper Satyrs.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 15, 2025, 09:21:40 AMNot a lot of artists are going to come up well when compared to Alan Lee.

Maybe so, but it is not as if WotC doesn't have access to some great artists.

You only need to look at various MtG pieces over the years to see that they have a killer artist pool to draw from.

But they have made an explicit choice not to.

They clearly have art direction that they want.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 15, 2025, 07:00:35 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 15, 2025, 09:21:40 AMNot a lot of artists are going to come up well when compared to Alan Lee.

Maybe so, but it is not as if WotC doesn't have access to some great artists.

You only need to look at various MtG pieces over the years to see that they have a killer artist pool to draw from.

But they have made an explicit choice not to.

They clearly have art direction that they want.

Oh, I agree. It's baffling that the biggest company in the industry can't tap the best artistic talent. They get their lunch eaten routinely by smaller competitors.  Incidentally, I got curious about this a while back and decided to look at how MTG art has changed over the years. You can look through the sets by year of publication here:

https://www.artofmtg.com/mtg-sets/

I would say that some of the issues that plague D&D art have started to creep into MTG in recent years, but on average it's still better.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 15, 2025, 10:32:43 PM...

Oh, I agree. It's baffling that the biggest company in the industry can't tap the best artistic talent. They get their lunch eaten routinely by smaller competitors.  Incidentally, I got curious about this a while back and decided to look at how MTG art has changed over the years. You can look through the sets by year of publication here:

https://www.artofmtg.com/mtg-sets/

I would say that some of the issues that plague D&D art have started to creep into MTG in recent years, but on average it's still better.

The beancounters are starting to realise that they can deliver lesser art, and MtG players will still snap it up like crack. But the great art was one of the selling points of the collectable cards...

We'll see how long that bold strategy lasts.

Also interesting to see how the number of decks released per year exploded after 2010 or so.

Yeah, they figure they can go cheap on art. But that will inevitably change to them just using AI art.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 13, 2025, 08:59:40 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on January 11, 2025, 03:43:56 PMThe biggest thing about the 2025 Monster Manual, is that there's a new way of Calculating Challenge Rating which has led to the Monster being stronger overall.

One of the largest complaints about 5th edition, was Monsters being too weak, particularly at higher levels. As has been revealed, the way CR was calculated in the 2014 edition, was the maximum output a monster was capable of, if everything was in their favor.

This could have been done with a simple PDF download (and been done years ago). Adjusting CR isn't a good enough reason for buying an entirely new book.

Well, the stat blocks themselves have been changed significantly by comparison as well. It's not like they just added the new CR in and changed nothing else. They reworked the majority of monsters to make them tougher and hit harder. CR calculation being different is just a bonus on top of that.

There's also been significant changes to creature types... Goblins and Bugbears are now Fey, this is a huge change because now it means spells like "Hold Person" won't work on them.

The changes to creature types are always confusing. There are already established settings. Arbitrarily forcing genre wide retcons like this has always frustrated me. Most people don't keep track of anal retentive stuff like that. A lot of the creature types in general are questionable at best. Why are centaurs and owlbears labeled monstrosities, but the tressym is a beast and the mermaid is a humanoid?

I mean, goblins and bugbears were traditionally creatures of fairy, but in the D&D context reclassifying them as that instead of "humanoids" is surprising.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2025, 09:58:15 AMGood DMs keep track of stuff like that.

Fixed that for you.

Since you know, there's a spell called "Hold Monster" that's a higher level and specifically can target any creature.

Quote from: Orphan81 on January 19, 2025, 09:14:35 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2025, 09:58:15 AMGood DMs keep track of stuff like that.

Fixed that for you.

Since you know, there's a spell called "Hold Monster" that's a higher level and specifically can target any creature.

What I mean is, e.g., prior to 5e the medusas were a race but post-5e they're a curse. Different people disagree on which depiction is correct whenever it would come up.

Obviously Hold Person vs Hold Monster is a more important concern, but the fluff does inform various other creative decisions.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2025, 09:58:15 AMThe changes to creature types are always confusing. There are already established settings. Arbitrarily forcing genre wide retcons like this has always frustrated me. Most people don't keep track of anal retentive stuff like that. A lot of the creature types in general are questionable at best. Why are centaurs and owlbears labeled monstrosities, but the tressym is a beast and the mermaid is a humanoid?

It depends on the current lore. Owlbears are monstrosities because, according to the current Monster Manual, they were likely created through magical experimentation, like some Frankensteinian monster. Maybe someday the lore will change, and they'll be considered beasts. But that's the problem with creature types: they depend on lore, which changes between settings. So owlbears can be magically-created monstrosities in one setting and beasts in another. Use whatever works for you.

In my Last Sun campaigns, the PCs were in a forest and stumbled onto the truth, when they ran into a Giant Owl and a Bear in the process of making a Bearowl.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 21, 2025, 02:46:35 AMIn my Last Sun campaigns, the PCs were in a forest and stumbled onto the truth, when they ran into a Giant Owl and a Bear in the process of making a Bearowl.

Woodsy Owl and Smokey Bear getting it on? That's a weird fetish.