We've talked about the new core rulebooks as the "2024 Core Rulebooks," but as we've learned from an announcement a few months ago, only the PHB and DMG will actually be releasing this year. The updated Monster Manual is due to come out a bit later.
The truth is, because this isn't strictly a new edition, it's probably fine. Not only do we have the 2014 MM to fall back on, but if there's one consistent addition to the game with nearly every book that comes out, it's new stat blocks. Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse doesn't have as extensive a bestiary as the Monster Manual, but its revisions of the additions from Volo's and the original Mordenkainen's provide both a bevy of creatures to choose from, but also a preview as to how we might see the originals change.
That being said, Monsters of the Multiverse came out two years ago, meaning that it will be around three years old by the time that MM25 is released, and as such, I can imagine that we'll see some design evolution from that point as well.
Let's start from the top:
Overall, the basic format of monsters and their stat blocks is, I think, unlikely to change. We might see some visual design changes - maybe a new font, maybe new colors - and it's possible that we'll see a change to where the Challenge Rating is found, possibly taking MCDM's approach and making it prominently visible at the top of the box (I'd actually love if they gave us monster roles as well, but I'm skeptical they will).
In general, I think we'll likely see formatting changes that have already happened carry through: rather than giving creatures lines in their basic traits section that provide things like bonus actions and spellcasting, this will instead be found in its Action or a separate Bonus Action section, respectively.
Likewise, we've seen a migration from the lore description outside the stat block to the stat block itself features like "Unusual Nature" that tell if a creature needs to drink or eat or the like.
Still, I imagine that all the information we currently get in a stat block will likely be represented similarly to how it is now.
But that's just formatting. What about changes to design?
Spellcasting:
Here, we saw an evolution of the design in MotM, where creatures with an extensive system of spell slots for casting instead got cantrip-like "spell attacks" that were the source of most of their damage, gaining utility or sometimes AoE spells as "X times per day" options.
I think this has made running these monsters far easier for DMs. The issue I have with it is how it neuters player-chosen spells like Counterspell.
Here, I favor the approach MCDM took in Flee, Mortals! Here, spellcasting enemies have multiattack options that allow them to cast genuine spells, and even though these are not cast using spell slots (meaning the DM only has to keep track of any "X/day" options) it still allows players to interact with these spells with their own options. By giving spellcasters multiattack, as well, you allow Counterspell to be a powerful option, but not one that will lock down a Lich (unless you have three characters all focusing on countering them every turn, which is unlikely even in a large party).
I'd also say that not all of the options need to be spell attacks - having effects that call for a saving throw feels more "caster-like" and will also not devalue effects like Aura of Protection, Bless, and the like.
Essentially, here are two entirely separate issues of why I don't like giving monsters a straight-up Spellcasting feature like player characters:
The first is just DM mental load - tracking spell slots is pretty easy for players, especially with a D&D Beyond sheet where you can just press "cast" and it will deduct the appropriate spell slot. But when you're running a Lich, his two Necromancer lieutenants, and twenty Ghasts or whatever, it's a lot.
The second reason is action economy: If your party has a Wizard or Sorcerer who can cast Counterspell, it's not an unreasonable plan to have them just spam Counterspells every time the big boss spellcaster casts a spell. And while this is certainly a good plan for players, for a DM it means that someone who is supposed to be really scary becomes pretty impotent.
Now, the redesign for Counterspell (while the Sorcerer in my Ravnica campaign is not a fan) in which it forces a Con save rather than automatically working on 3rd-and-lower spells, and can be up-cast to always work if you know the level of the spell you're countering, does help a lot with this - this can actually be a place where your bosses might burn through Legendary Resistances (I don't think I've ever used all of them on any boss) and where their high Con save bonus might make Counterspell a riskier move.
But in case the redesign doesn't go live, I wanted to propose something else: what if the multiattack options for casters allowed one regular spell (though in an "X per day" or even "At Will" format) along with a handful of the MotM-style spell attacks? That way, you can spam Counterspell to deal with the most powerful of their abilities, but they're still going to be dishing out the damage (possibly even have the "spell" thing more of a crowd-control element, meaning that even when their nasty spells are being countered, they're still putting out just as much damage as a boss ought to).
General Balance:
There's a tendency to talk about high-level D&D as an unbalanced mess, but in my experience running things now at tier 4 (admittedly without a Wizard in the party) it actually feels reasonable (my characters have high ACs, but the monsters hit hard enough that there's a sense of danger).
Still, I think that some of the older creature designs do suffer. Probably none do more than legendary monsters, where the action economy (even with their legendary actions) can really fail to deliver the kind of threat they're meant to.
Granted, I think this is most prevalent in spellcasting enemies - as long as a legendary monster is still bound to a single reaction and a single spell on their turn, they'll struggle to be the kind of terror that they ought to be.
Now, obviously, monsters shouldn't be invincible - as much as I've dreamed of setting Sul Khatesh on a party and letting them puzzle out how the hell they're able to do anything to her (though my party does have an artifact weapon, so they'd be able to do a little damage) - there does need to be a gap in their armor.
That being said, I think that the game isn't totally ideal for "boss fights" because, given how long it takes to run combat, every encounter should be at least a little dramatic and challenging. In a video game you can blaze through like fifty encounters before you take on a boss, which gives you the opportunity to make some real contrast. In D&D, I try not to have more than four or five encounters per day, so the boss can't be that much crazier than the other fights.
Legendary Reactions:
One curious aspect of recent monster design (first seen, I think, in the Spelljammer Monstrous Compendium) is that legendary actions seem to be getting replaced with Legendary Reactions, in other words, giving boss monsters multiple reactions per round that can be used for things similar to legendary actions.
There is some tech this actually takes away, which is allowing the expenditure of multiple legendary... things for more powerful effects. For instance, the Lich can spend a single legendary action to cast a cantrip, but can spend more for effects like its Paralyzing Touch or Frightening Gaze, and all three to do Disrupt Life, a reasonably powerful AoE damage burst.
The Vecna the Archmage stat block from the Vecna Dossier just has two extra reactions - they're powerful, including what is essentially a 4th level Counterspell that deals damage and also, because it's not a spell, can't itself be countered, and a quick escape reaction if someone hits him in melee.
These are both really good, mind you (in fact, given that Vecna can cast Scrying at will and the range on his counterspell is just "anyone he can see casting a spell" you could really cause a lot of pain before the party even gets to him).
Having not used a ton of this style of legendary monster, I can't really tell you what I think of it. I think this Vecna stat block is deadlier than the Monster Manual Lich, but it's also several CRs higher, so that's to be expected.
One thing that this does do is that the legendary reactions compete with normal ones, like opportunity attacks. Given that this version of Vecna has a pretty powerful melee weapon attack, you might actually be tempted to make use of that if it's provoked, but if a 2014 Lich has three legendary actions and a reaction, our new style loses one of these four off-turn capabilities.
Evil Humanoids:
Naturally, the notion that some peoples are inherently evil is abhorrent, and at the risk of breaking us out of this fun little fantasy bubble, the real world suffers the most when groups of people convince themselves that other groups of people are inhuman and worthy of wholesale slaughter.
Still, it can get murky in the land of fantasy. For example, well before Tolkien, the earliest versions of Orcs were actually malevolent underworld spirits (if I recall correctly, they originate in Greek myth,) not too dissimilar to demons and devils and the like. Over time, though, in fantasy fiction, Orcs have evolved into something that is more human-like, really a people with their own culture but who are essentially not that distinct from humans. Clearly at this point, Orcs in particular have been an opportunity to examine the way that dehumanization can obscure a culture that has its own richness and merits, even if history has put us in conflict with them.
I find it interesting, then, that most of these classic "evil humanoids" like Drow, Orcs, and Goblins have undergone something of a rehabilitation in D&D, with Ed Greenwood (creator of the Forgotten Realms) introducing lore about Drow who are not aligned with Lolth's murderous and evil ways. But not all of them have: Gnolls, for example, have been relabeled as Monstrosities, and are solidified as unnatural and purely evil. While the descriptions of Gnolls in lore sourcebooks suggests a truly monstrous nature, spawning from the evil of Yeenoghu, I'll confess I don't see why these hyena-people are so inherently bad while, for example, Minotaurs (who were similarly linked to another demon lord in the form of Baphomet) have been given a more neutral/all-alignments treatment, and there's even a new alternative origin story, connecting them instead to Sigil and the Lady of Pain's mazes rather than Baphomet's Abyssal labyrinth.
What, though, does this mean for stat blocks?
Well, clearly we need to preserve some of them for the backwards compatibility that is one of the new books' major selling points. If I pull out Lost Mines of Phandelver (or the Shattered Obelisk) I'm going to need those "Goblin" stat blocks for the first encounters.
But we're almost certainly going to see an "any alignment" label on these stat blocks rather than the current "chaotic evil" ones.
Indeed, it seems likely that we'll be sticking with "typically" as a qualifier on alignments - even in cases where it would seem that beings are defined by their alignments, like Devils being lawful evil and Demons chaotic evil. I actually have no problem with that - if we can have any sort of fallen angel that is of an evil alignment, it stands to reason that you could have a noble fiend who has turned their back on evil, despite being physiologically the same as they were.
Another thing I'm curious to see is Hags. Hags are... here's the thing: they make for awesome monsters and villainous (not necessarily antagonistic) NPCs, but they are, of course, even inherently in their names, built on misogyny.
And yet, I think that we're seeing a way to play with that - in Turn of Fortune's Wheel, the adventure that's part of the Planescape box set, we encounter a male hag. He uses "uncle" as his title, much as hags often go by "Auntie" or "Granny." And you know what? I think this kind of solves the problem. Hags are the embodiment of cruelty, conniving, manipulation, and nastiness, and women of course don't have a monopoly on those things.
More Unique Mechanics:
One of the issues you get with the release of any new monsters is that, well, there's just not a huge difference between monsters. When you look at an Ogre as compared to a Hill Giant, there's a difference in CR and thus damage and hit points, but overall, there's not much that really makes these monsters too distinct - it's super easy to re-skin a hill giant as a more powerful ogre, or to use ogres as lesser hill giants.
I'm hoping that we get a good hook for each monster family. Yes, being able to reskin monsters easily can be helpful in and of itself, but monsters should also be exciting to face. Anything that's just a big bag of hit points feels like it should get at least one unique thing that it can do and no other monsters can.
But that's less of a prediction than a wish.
Anyway, this is the book we're going to have to wait longest for. Luckily, we have tons of resources to tide us over. I never even got Tome of Beasts III, and I still have plenty of Flee, Mortals monsters I've never used. I haven't even checked out the Grim Hollow and Drakkenheim books.
No comments:
Post a Comment