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.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Who knows, but I think you can also buy multiple packets of jello and make a massive gelatinous cube on your own...

My preferred flavor of gelatinous cube is cherry, but failing that..green.

 

[Zarithar]

I hope they categorize the Monster Manual like it has been in the past rather than what they did with Monsters of the Multiverse. For example having demon and devil as a heading and then all of the associated monsters as sub-entries. Really hated that change in MotM... made it way harder to find things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I hope they categorize the Monster Manual like it has been in the past rather than what they did with Monsters of the Multiverse. For example having demon and devil as a heading and then all of the associated monsters as sub-entries. Really hated that change in MotM... made it way harder to find things.

Yeah, that annoyed the heck out of me. And they did the same with any other monsters in book published after. Don't see any benefit.

 

[grimmgoose]

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.

Yeah, I have zero interest in the Bastion mechanic as we saw in the UA. It needs a total redesign for me to get interested.

I was pretty excited about a Bastion mechanic when I first heard about it, but the UA was a total misfire.

 

[Zaukrie]

I hope they categorize the Monster Manual like it has been in the past rather than what they did with Monsters of the Multiverse. For example having demon and devil as a heading and then all of the associated monsters as sub-entries. Really hated that change in MotM... made it way harder to find things.

Agreed. Luckily I mostly use dndbeyond at this point, but still....I hated that change.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I also hope that WoTC does this. However, I don't think they'll be bringing back the Ardling. Not when they can give us the option of role-playing a Guardinal-descended Aasimar instead.

I don't think they'd bring back the ardling as a "now you can play a guardinal-themed aasimar", but I could definitely see it popping back up for all the people who want "tabaxi, but dog/deer/[insert animal here]".

That's more or less what I mean by "animal person" instead of "celestial planetouched". Ardling as a unified framework for all/most anthropomorphic animal species going forward, with little to no celestial theming - maybe keep the connection to the Beastlands as a justification for them covering any animal, but not much beyond that.

 

[mamba]

Yeah, that annoyed the heck out of me. And they did the same with any other monsters in book published after. Don't see any benefit.

because that way it is consistent. Why group dragons, demons and devils, but not undead, aberrations, oozes or constructs

 

[Parmandur]

because that way it is consistent. Why group dragons, demons and devils, but not undead, abominations or constructs

I could see them organizing alphabetically within Creatuee Type. So there is a Chapter of Fiends arranged alphabetically, a Chapter of Undead arranged alphabetically, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

because that way it is consistent. Why group dragons, demons and devils, but not undead, abominations or constructs

Because they had been grouped this way for over 45 years, for one. And undead, abominations, and constructs are creatures types. Dragons are only part of the dragon creature type, and demons and devils are both types of outsiders (or whatever they're called now), like angels. The system has never listed full stat blocks by creature type.

 

[mamba]

I could see them organizing alphabetically within Creatuee Type. So there is a Chapter of Fiends arranged alphabetically, a Chapter of Undead arranged alphabetically, etc.

that would work too, but keep it consistent. I prefer alphabetical however, that way I do not have to know whether something is an aberration or monstrosity (or maybe even demon?) when looking for it

You can always add a table by type, in case someone is looking for a demon of the appropriate CR

I believe ‘The Monsters know what they are doing’ has it by type and CR, which got plenty of complaints that they are in a random order… sometimes a complex order is equivalent to unsorted, so I would not group by type