What do we want for MM2

[Naanomi]

I think the Monster Manual we have is great, but I have noticed a few monsters missing from my 'usual stable' or for specific adventures I'm building:
Elf, Aquatic
Choker
Giant Insect (Ant, Bee)
Hollyphant
Ixitxachitl
Kirin
Lammasu
Locathah
Moondog
Morkoth
Neogi
Phoenix
Scorpionfolk
Shedu
Siren
Wemic
Zaratan

Some planar monsters would be nice, just for 'setting fill-in' if nothing else:
Arcane
Archon
Astral Dreadnaught
Bauriar
Demodand
Energon
Eladrin (or whatever they call CG outsiders now)
Formian
Genasi
Guardinal
Inevitable
Lillend
Shadar-Kai
Tako
Vaati
Zodar

I'm sure there is setting specific stuff people would be interested in as well:
Changling
Dabus
Draeden
Gibberling
Giff
Shifter
Starspawn
Warforged
Xvart

Templates are not really a big focus this edition, but do exist. I'd like to see:
Alignment: (Anarchic, Axiomatic, Celestial, Fiendish)
Psuedonatural
Shadow

Plus there are monsters we can always use more 'varieties' of:
Beholderkin: (Doomsphere, Eye of the Deep, Hive Mother, Spectator)
Demon: (A huge list, pick some)
Devil: (A shorter list, but pick some)
Dire Animals: Dire Rhino, Dire Stag)
Dragon: (Always more variants to show)
Drakes
Fae: (Brownie, Bunyip, Grig, Leprechaun Nixie, Nymph, Redcap, Sylph, Vodonoi)
Genie: (Janni)
Giant: (Sand, Shadow)
Golem: (Bone, Brass, Crystal/Gemstone, Glass, Wood)
Illithid: (Alhoon, Elder Brain, Neothelid, Ulitharid Urophion)
Lycanthropes: (Werebat, Werefox, Wereshark)
Plants: (Assassin Vine, Carnivorous Plant)
Troll: (Scrag)
Undead: (Allip, Bodak, Crypt Thing, Dhampyr, Huecuva)
Weird: (Air, Earth, Fire)
Yugoloth: (A list, pick some)

[mr_odd]

Hook Horror and Galeb Duhrs are both in the current monster manual.

[DanyBallon]

Hook Horror (p.189) and Galeb Duhrs (p.139) are both in the current monster manual.

As well as Phase Spider (p.334), Winter wolf (p.340) & Worg (p.341) :)

More fey, and dire animals (though giant version of animals can fit for these) would be nice, mostly since I'm adapting Kingmaker :P

[Naanomi]

Well shame on me from going off of index and memory... I'll edit them out of the list now

[mr_odd]

Well shame on me from going off of index and memory... I'll edit them out of the list now

No worries! As far as what I would like to see, I want simply more of the same. I'm not necessarily concerned with what monsters they add, as long as they keep the same format as the first Monster Manual. I love all of the detailed descriptions and backgrounds of the monsters.

[Eslin]

A bunch more templates, an actual explanation of how natural armour works and a balancing system for templates other than fluff.

And a bunch of high level monsters, way too much low CR stuff in the MM. I'm glad there is, I just want a bunch more tough stuff.

Also a bunch more mid CR animals and elementals, druids have almost no choices past the low CRs.

[Svata]

Some more members of class?order? illithidae, most definitely. Specifically, alhoons, ulitharids, and urophions.

And more varieties of undead are always nice. Also, Dire. Rhinocerous. Please.

[Rfkannen]

What do I want? weresharks! Werebats! Shifters! Werehalflings!

more plant things. sentient house plants. THose guys that can turn into cats. Rules for monster races. Warforged. Eladrin(the 2e kind not the 4e kind) those red australian vampire octopuses. Brownie. SOme more evil fae. Some more realy powerful fae. A couple of those old ones that pacts can be made with. Or at least there spawn(Starspawn cthulhy spawn all that) Dhampyr. Fomarians(were those in there, whatever I like them) Tuatha Dé Danann. SOmething norse inspired.

[Naanomi]

Added everything specific listed


Also a bunch more mid CR animals and elementals, druids have almost no choices past the low CRs.

I'm cautious to go this route, easy to slowly hedge the power level and versatility up on Moon Druid, which I don't see people complaining about needing too much. I hope designers are cognizant of this as they proceed with MM2. Still, if you have specific requests I'll add them to the list.

[EccentricCircle]

I particularly noticed the lack of Assassin Vines and Nymphs. I don't think inevitables are in there either, which is a shame in principle, as they are a really cool idea.

[Rogue Shadows]

Monsters from around the world, particularly an Oriental Adventures update for the non-Rokugan monsters:

Bajang
Bakemono
Baku
Bisan
Doc Cu'o'c
Dokafu
Dragon, lung
Gaki
Hag, Bog
Hannya
Hebi-no-onna
Hengeyokai
Kappa
Koro-pok-guru
Longma
Nat
Oni
Pennaggolan
Qilin
Rokuro-kubi
Shirokinu-Katsukami
Spirit Folk
Tako
Tasloi
Tengu (in the sense of protective but dangerous spirits of the mountains and forests)
Vampire, Hopping (Jiangshi)
Vanara
Wang-Liang
Yuki-on-na

Apart from that, I'd also like to see a goodly portion of the book devoted to racial write-ups for "monsters" that could be appropriate as player characters. Including the ones listed above...

Gnoll
Gnome, deep
Goblin
Grimlock
Hobgoblin
Kenku
Kobold
Koro-pok-guru
Hengeyokai
Lizardfolk
Orc
Spirit Folk
Vanara

[Kryx]

Barghest and Greater Barghest.

Anything from RotRL or other Paizo APs for that matter.

[mr_odd]

I would also love to see another NPC section, that is incredibly useful.

[silveralen]

Hmm... personally I'd like more monsters in the low teens of CR. That area seems a little sparse.


A bunch more templates, an actual explanation of how natural armour works and a balancing system for templates other than fluff.

What's the confusion?

Any armor past the dexterity bonus is due to natural armor or equipment.

[mephnick]

To not come out for a few years.

The 3.5 books were mostly filled with forced garbage. Keep it simple.

[AuraTwilight]

Some more higher-CR monsters to fill out the distribution a little.

Also Monsters As PCs rules. Please?

[silveralen]

Also Monsters As PCs rules. Please?

Please no. Pretty please no. The DM guide has something close for building NPCs, that gives the DM the option to do it if a player wants, without players acting as if not allowing them to play a half ogre half dragon in a normal campaign was somehow discrimination. Then, we already have to work talking dragon people in to existing campaigns, so that ship has probably sailed.

[Feldarove]

I think they could give more examples of favorite monsters...like zombie or lyncanthropes, goblins, orcs, etc. I think people often use this, and having more options is fun. Especially making higher level options for typically low level monsters, like goblin.

I also would like to see more dragons. or dragon variants. I liked in 3.5 the MMIII or IV dragons that were like shadow and stuff. Cool beans.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't really care about Monster Manuals. What I want is a book of demon lord stats, fluff and realms. Another for Hell, and a third for Elder Evils. Converting Demogorgon or Dagon into 5E is going to be a lot of work (multiple bases for each to start with) so a book that deals with that would be wonderful.

[Envyus]

Monsters from around the world, particularly an Oriental Adventures update for the non-Rokugan monsters:

Oni

That one is in the book already.

[silveralen]

I liked in 3.5 the MMIII or IV dragons that were like shadow and stuff. Cool beans.

Shadow dragons actually made the cut this time around, it's basically a template, with an adult red dragon turned shadow given as an example.

[Fwiffo86]

MM2 is not needed at all imo

[mephnick]

Please no. Pretty please no. The DM guide has something close for building NPCs, that gives the DM the option to do it if a player wants, without players acting as if not allowing them to play a half ogre half dragon in a normal campaign was somehow discrimination. Then, we already have to work talking dragon people in to existing campaigns, so that ship has probably sailed.

Agreed. It's bad enough I have to deal with tieflings, drow and (ugh) dragonborn. I don't need players trying to justify were-bear sahaguin adventurers by quoting the MM2.


MM2 is not needed at all imo

Agreed. I think anything not covered by the MM can be easily created by modifying another monster. It would be 90% bloat.

[Totema]

I have a soft spot for undead, so ideally I'd like to see something in the same vein as the Charnel Hound again.

[Naanomi]

Agreed. I think anything not covered by the MM can be easily created by modifying another monster. It would be 90% bloat.I disagree. While some monsters are easy to convert (a scrag is just a troll that breathes water and has a swim speed) but... Phoenix? Neogi? What easy shift to an existing monster do I use, and what about the culture/tactics blurb? While not every cultural 'ghost' needs it's own entry, I think there is room for another compendium and maybe for some specialized products... A book of fiends, a book of fae, etc

[Forum Explorer]

What I want is high CR fey creatures. The scary and powerful stuff of legends. Stuff like Dulahans or Windigos.

[Demonic Spoon]

Agreed. I think anything not covered by the MM can be easily created by modifying another monster. It would be 90% bloat.


you think that pretty much all interesting monster concept has already been covered in the current monster manual? Even when the designers talked about how constrained they were by the page limit of the books, and how they wanted to put more stuff in the current MM?

That's absurd.



Besides, homebrewed monsters are strictly worse than non-homebrewed monsters. Homebrewing a monster puts additional prep time on the DM, and the DM doesn't have the benefit of playtesting a homebrew before using it live in a game.

[Human Paragon 3]

Barghest and Greater Barghest.



Came her to say this! I bet the 5e barghest will be awesome.

[Rfkannen]

Oh yeah, kappa. I want kappa. I forgot to mention those.

[Freelance GM]

A lot of the traditional stuff everyone's already mentioned (Phoenixes, Barghests, Inevitables, Fey, more Templates, ect.) would be nice.

However, before MM2 comes out, I'd rather see a 5E version of Deities and Demigods (sticking to the whole back-to-their-roots theme) full of stats for named beings like Demon Lords, Archdevils, Archfey, maybe even some Vestiges. It doesn't have to be a huge book- something HotDQ-sized would be fine. I just think it would still be cool to have official 5E stats for notorious characters like Vecna or Orcus... And guidelines for DM's creating their own legendary villains.

Not all of them have to be epic-level, either. They could throw in stats for some mid-level villains like Strahd Von Zarovich or Acererak if they wanted to.

EDIT: Bonus points if the stats are for the decoy "Acererak" instead of the actual Demilich.

[mr_odd]

A lot of the traditional stuff everyone's already mentioned (Phoenixes, Barghests, Inevitables, Fey, more Templates, ect.) would be nice.

However, before MM2 comes out, I'd rather see a 5E version of Deities and Demigods (sticking to the whole back-to-their-roots theme) full of stats for named beings like Demon Lords, Archdevils, Archfey, maybe even some Vestiges. It doesn't have to be a huge book- something HotDQ-sized would be fine. I just think it would still be cool to have official 5E stats for notorious characters like Vecna or Orcus... And guidelines for DM's creating their own legendary villains.

Not all of them have to be epic-level, either. They could throw in stats for some mid-level villains like Strahd Von Zarovich or Acererak if they wanted to.

I would be all for this, especially if they gave us stats for villains across all levels. At the very least, it would give us stats to copy and paste into our own villains if we so desired.

[Freelance GM]

I would be all for this, especially if they gave us stats for villains across all levels. At the very least, it would give us stats to copy and paste into our own villains if we so desired.

The only problem is that low-level villains tend to die before they can become too infamous. The only "iconic" low-level named villains I can really think of are the Slave Lords and the Half-Dragons from Red Hand of Doom.

[Eslin]

What's the confusion?

Any armor past the dexterity bonus is due to natural armor or equipment.

No rules on how it stacks with other kinds of armour. I'd guess that it does with armour and doesn't with AC calculation changers, but some actual rules would be nice.


I'm cautious to go this route, easy to slowly hedge the power level and versatility up on Moon Druid, which I don't see people complaining about needing too much. I hope designers are cognizant of this as they proceed with MM2. Still, if you have specific requests I'll add them to the list.

There are 3 CR3 beasts, 1 CR4, 3 CR5 and 1 CR6. It's a pointlessly limited selection.

[SaintRidley]

More Illithid types, and then a good assortment of everything else. More fey and undead wouldn't hurt.

[Gnomes2169]

I would like to see more psionic critters (ithillid, elan, xeph, blues, etc) first and foremost, more dragons (planar, gem and lesser dragons for the most part) and then more devils and Yuggoloths (more of the later than the former).

Along the oriental adventures thing, I would also like to see a return of the underdeveloped void outsiders return and get expanded (void walker and void hound, along with perhaps the Nightstalker and Deathwing reclassified to fit, since they don't have the strongest origin fluff as it stands, and R. A. Salvatore already classified them as creatures "of the void" and servants of a dragon "slumbering in the heart of the void." Since the developers seem to love drawing from authorial works in this edition...)

Also, moar dinosaurs. Seriously. Who doesn't want more dinos?

Finally, more good aligned critters, like Archons, Undying (those good-aligned undead) and whatever the CG outsiders are. My evil campaign needs things to stab, and my dude summoning an army of angels needs an army of angels. :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

That one is in the book already.

Ogre mages are, yes, under a new name; but not oni in the vein of Oriental Adventures (and no, I don't mean the Shadowlands Oni, either).


Please no. Pretty please no. The DM guide has something close for building NPCs, that gives the DM the option to do it if a player wants, without players acting as if not allowing them to play a half ogre half dragon in a normal campaign was somehow discrimination. Then, we already have to work talking dragon people in to existing campaigns, so that ship has probably sailed.

Agreed. It's bad enough I have to deal with tieflings, drow and (ugh) dragonborn. I don't need players trying to justify were-bear sahaguin adventurers by quoting the MM2.

You're the DM. If you don't want a thing in your campaign setting, then put your damn foot down and don't include the thing in your campaign setting. As a DM you are required to listen to your players, not obey them, and if they have a problem with that, that is their problem, not yours. Meanwhile, though, many amongst the rest of us would like concrete rules for monsters-as-PCs because we want some official write-ups for such things just in case we want to run a campaign in, say, Krynn, or Spelljammer.


However, before MM2 comes out, I'd rather see a 5E version of Deities and Demigods (sticking to the whole back-to-their-roots theme) full of stats for named beings like Demon Lords, Archdevils, Archfey, maybe even some Vestiges. It doesn't have to be a huge book- something HotDQ-sized would be fine. I just think it would still be cool to have official 5E stats for notorious characters like Vecna or Orcus... And guidelines for DM's creating their own legendary villains.

This is an excellent idea! You get a gold star. I liked Deities & Demigods, even if it seems few other people did.

[Maxilian]

Some more members of class?order? illithidae, most definitely. Specifically, alhoons, ulitharids, and urophions.

And more varieties of undead are always nice. Also, Dire. Rhinocerous. Please.

Also... we need more types of elementals!!

[Chaosvii7]

While I don't think it's MM2 material, I think they should make a sourcebook of famous D&D NPCs. They've made Farideh from the Sundering novels back in October, and I think there's something worth exploring in a book full of various iconic characters. It gives you meat to build your own Icons out of, and it also gives DMs of a specific setting a few particular choices for figures for the party to encounter.

[ImperiousLeader]

Also Monsters As PCs rules. Please?

I wouldn't mind rules for that, but not in a monster manual. Maybe in an Unearthed Arcana, or some other something like that.

I want more dinosaurs. I need mounts for Eberron Halflings.

More Dragon types. Gem, Iron, for example. Asian-style dragons.

More Undead.

Other monsters from mythology. Phoenix, Wendigo, etc.

I wouldn't mind some of the more obscure or less popular 3.5 and 4e PC races being brought in as monsters first. Shardmind, Wilden (or Killoren), Goliath, Dromite, Illumian, for example.

[silveralen]

I disagree. While some monsters are easy to convert (a scrag is just a troll that breathes water and has a swim speed) but... Phoenix? Neogi? What easy shift to an existing monster do I use, and what about the culture/tactics blurb? While not every cultural 'ghost' needs it's own entry, I think there is room for another compendium and maybe for some specialized products... A book of fiends, a book of fae, etc

Actually, given their commitment to the "story supplement route" I would expect to see something like this in the DM portion. We have the elemental evil stuff coming out in a few months, likely that will have a number of elemental themed enemies or templates. An undead or fey themed campaign might similarly expand.

I'm not sure if this is better or worse than new monster manuals.

[Svata]

Also... we need more types of elementals!!

Yes. Paraelementals. Ice and ooze specifically. Yes, there are oozes, but no ooze paraelementals. I have an idea for a campaign and need all the stats for everything ooze-like.

[Gov. Sandwiches]

Also, moar dinosaurs. Seriously. Who doesn't want more dinos?


One of my players mentioned off hand that it would be funny if they passed long grass while travelling and I want to make this happen but i need velociraptors.

I think we need WAY less fractions of CRs...I'm not sure what these are for, and in general there's way too many fraction CRs, 1 and 2 CRs for levels that go by in abt 2-3 sessions. Perhaps I'm using them incorrectly. 1/4 CR Drow are pretty stout though. Anything 1/8 is useless.

Also I'm pretty sure the Shadow 1/4CR is errata, anyone else find this to be true? Nearly wiped a level 2 party with 4 of them.

[mr_odd]

One of my players mentioned off hand that it would be funny if they passed long grass while travelling and I want to make this happen but i need velociraptors.

I think we need WAY less fractions of CRs...I'm not sure what these are for, and in general there's way too many fraction CRs, 1 and 2 CRs for levels that go by in abt 2-3 sessions. Perhaps I'm using them incorrectly. 1/4 CR Drow are pretty stout though. Anything 1/8 is useless.

Also I'm pretty sure the Shadow 1/4CR is errata, anyone else find this to be true? Nearly wiped a level 2 party with 4 of them.

I don't know about yours, but my MM states that Shadows are a 1/2 Challenge (100 XP), meaning 4 Shadows would equal 800 XP in adjusted XP. This straight up equals a deadly encounter for a party of four level 2 adventurers, whose deadly XP threshold per character is 200.

[Gov. Sandwiches]

You're the DM. If you don't want a thing in your campaign setting, then put your damn foot down and don't include the thing in your campaign setting. As a DM you are required to listen to your players, not obey them, and if they have a problem with that, that is their problem, not yours. Meanwhile, though, many amongst the rest of us would like concrete rules for monsters-as-PCs because we want some official write-ups for such things just in case we want to run a campaign in, say, Krynn, or Spelljammer.



I don't know if this is really applicable advice for most people. I'm strong headed and stubborn and very anti bullywug elf paladins but the group proposed me running 3.5 and when they started coming up with the daftest race combos I told them no but got nothing but fighting for 2 hours about how "the rules say it's okay so you need to let me be a half dragon ogre so I can fly, I'm taking like 4 level penalty" etc. So I basically just capitulated sort of by saying that I'll never run 3.5. So I ended up running 5 and I couldn't be happier.

Perhaps you like arguing for hours but I do not.

[Gov. Sandwiches]

I don't know about yours, but my MM states that Shadows are a 1/2 Challenge (100 XP), meaning 4 Shadows would equal 800 XP in adjusted XP. This straight up equals a deadly encounter for a party of four level 2 adventurers, whose deadly XP threshold per character is 200.

That is correct, perhaps that's why I threw 4 at them because I misread the entry but that same night they burned down the Quaggoth with 2 drow in no time flat.

[mr_odd]

That is correct, perhaps that's why I threw 4 at them because I misread the entry but that same night they burned down the Quaggoth with 2 drow in no time flat.

Eh, a lot of it has to do with situation, environment, party make up, the actual skill level of the players themselves, etc. There are so many variables, I'm surprised the challenge rating system works as well as it does. That said, everything is a simple guideline. I've been DM-ing the same guys for over a year, and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what kinds of monsters are appropriate for them. Sometimes an encounter is great, sometimes, not so much.

[Rogue Shadows]

Perhaps you like arguing for hours but I do not.

Nor do I. That's why I don't argue. The players get to make their case, then I make my decision based on my own understanding of the rules, what I want for the campaign, and the case that they've presented to me; and having made my decision I make sure to outline the reasons. But the decision is final. And if the players were really gonna keep arguing after that then I really don't want to be their DM.


the rules say it's okay so you need to let me be a half dragon ogre so I can fly, I'm taking like 4 level penalty

Also, the rules say nothing of the sort in 3.5. Indeed the chapter of the DMG that lists out how to run monsters as PCs even has this sidebar:

Variant: No Sidebars for Variant Rules
In contrast to the way the rest of the Dungeon Master's Guide is structures, this chapter is composed of alternative rules, concepts, and ways of doing things. So, in this chapter, you won't find variant rules set off in sidebars - the variant rules are actually the meat of this chapter.
Sidebars are used in this chapter for "behind the curtain" topics, just as in the rest of the book.

The entire chapter is comprised of nothing but variants. Nothing in the rules says it's okay without DM permission.

[silveralen]

You're the DM. If you don't want a thing in your campaign setting, then put your damn foot down and don't include the thing in your campaign setting. As a DM you are required to listen to your players, not obey them, and if they have a problem with that, that is their problem, not yours.

Saying no to options that exist is always problematic, it causes bad feelings to a degree. I'd prefer to simply not have the ones that contributed nothing but cheese to the game, like a lot of level adjustment races, which were used for optimization 99% of the time. Monsters as PCs should be something tables handle themselves, it should never even be discussed as an official option.


One of my players mentioned off hand that it would be funny if they passed long grass while travelling and I want to make this happen but i need velociraptors.

Just size down an allosaurus, the allosaurus in the MM is, for some odd reason, basically the giant raptor from 3.5's MM if I recall.

[Rogue Shadows]

Saying no to options that exist is always problematic, it causes bad feelings to a degree.

That's their problem, not yours. Star Wars Revised Edition and D&D 3rd Edition were 100% compatible, ergo the option to include them existed, but no way in Hell would I let a Twi'lek Jedi Consular with a lightsaber run around Greyhawk - not without some substantial fluff changes, anyway. For similar reasons the DMG included rules for six-shooters and even laser weapons (for that matter so does the 5E one), but I'll bet you'd have no problem disallowing those, either, in most settings.

No, the problem wasn't with the options provided, it was with the fact that you couldn't find a way to resolve the issue without causing bad feelings. Well...bad feelings happen, dude. The players don't always get what they want, and they shouldn't get it, either, but if that prevents them from enjoying the game then maybe they shouldn't be playing it in the first place.

I'm not saying become the Lord High Overtyrant of the Gaming Table, I'm just saying that part of the job of being a Dungeon Master is knowing how to put your foot down on a matter with finality. Don't blame the system for providing the DM with tools. Instead, accept responsibility for letting the players get tools they weren't intended to possess nor have full agency over, which you were told they weren't intended to possess nor have full agency over.


I'd prefer to simply not have the ones that contributed nothing but cheese to the game, like a lot of level adjustment races, which were used for optimization 99% of the time. Monsters as PCs should be something tables handle themselves, it should never even be discussed as an official option.

I disagree, vehemently. First off because if we're ever going to get a DragonLance update then ogres, centaurs, and minotaurs in some variety are going to need to be a PC-available race simply as a matter of course, and as long as they're doing that they might as well do write-ups for at least the other LA +0 races (or whatever the equivalent term could be in 5E). Secondly because it's such a common option to take that it wouldn't make sense for Wizards of the Coast to not publish rules for it - it'd be kind of like not doing a Psionics book or a Forgotten Realms campaign guide.

Plus, if you're really concerned about things that are the cause of 90% of the game's cheese, then what you should be more concerned about is the chapter on spells in the Player's Handbook and the chapter on magic items in the Dungeon Master's Guide, since most of the worst offenses of rules in D&D come from either spells or magic items.

[AuraTwilight]

Also, no one trying to cheese the game took anything with more than LA +2 anyway, and even then usually only if LA Buyoff was allowed.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

So, WotC shouldn't publish content that people want, because some people find it awkward to not use it a their table. Wow. I thought listing everything as a variant appeased this mindset enough already.

[silveralen]

So, WotC shouldn't publish content that people want, because some people find it awkward to not use it a their table. Wow. I thought listing everything as a variant appeased this mindset enough already.

Also because I'd just as soon they work on content that's more widely applicable.


That's their problem, not yours. Star Wars Revised Edition and D&D 3rd Edition were 100% compatible, ergo the option to include them existed, but no way in Hell would I let a Twi'lek Jedi Consular with a lightsaber run around Greyhawk - not without some substantial fluff changes, anyway. For similar reasons the DMG included rules for six-shooters and even laser weapons (for that matter so does the 5E one), but I'll bet you'd have no problem disallowing those, either, in most settings.

No, the problem wasn't with the options provided, it was with the fact that you couldn't find a way to resolve the issue without causing bad feelings. Well...bad feelings happen, dude. The players don't always get what they want, and they shouldn't get it, either, but if that prevents them from enjoying the game then maybe they shouldn't be playing it in the first place.

I'm not saying become the Lord High Overtyrant of the Gaming Table, I'm just saying that part of the job of being a Dungeon Master is knowing how to put your foot down on a matter with finality. Don't blame the system for providing the DM with tools. Instead, accept responsibility for letting the players get tools they weren't intended to possess nor have full agency over, which you were told they weren't intended to possess nor have full agency over.

Say what you want, disallowing options that are supposedly balanced annoys players. Is it an issue you can work around? Of course. But I'd rather they simply didn't include them. It keeps the rules less cluttered, keeps people from trying absurd stuff, and heads off any such disagreement from the start.


I disagree, vehemently. First off because if we're ever going to get a DragonLance update then ogres, centaurs, and minotaurs in some variety are going to need to be a PC-available race simply as a matter of course, and as long as they're doing that they might as well do write-ups for at least the other LA +0 races (or whatever the equivalent term could be in 5E). Secondly because it's such a common option to take that it wouldn't make sense for Wizards of the Coast to not publish rules for it - it'd be kind of like not doing a Psionics book or a Forgotten Realms campaign guide.

Okay, minotaurs in dragonlance yes, though they were always different than standard DnD minotaurs.

Ogres? You mean the weird, barely even allowed, practically dead slightly mythical player race of peaceful ogres that was barely ever relevant to the setting or core novels? Lets pretend they were never mentioned, and retcon them.

I also don't recall centaurs being more common in dragonlance than any other setting.


Plus, if you're really concerned about things that are the cause of 90% of the game's cheese, then what you should be more concerned about is the chapter on spells in the Player's Handbook and the chapter on magic items in the Dungeon Master's Guide, since most of the worst offenses of rules in D&D come from either spells or magic items.

The issue with monster pcs wasn't the amount of cheese, but how glaringly unrealistic it is to even routinely have a single monster PC per party. Most often, if someone brought it up, it was because they were power gaming and not because they wanted to explore the concept of playing suh a character. Seriously, I have seen one player who were legitimately interested in it, while others actually would get offended that their half troll half bugbear revenant PC faced negative reactions from random people.

If you are interested in playing one from an RP perspective, crunch from similar existing races could be used and minor differences hand waved.

[AuraTwilight]

The issue with monster pcs wasn't the amount of cheese, but how glaringly unrealistic it is to even routinely have a single monster PC per party.

Yea, we can't have a lack of realism in our pretend elfgames.


If you are interested in playing one from an RP perspective, crunch from similar existing races could be used and minor differences hand waved.

If you want to play an elf, you can just play a human's crunch with an elf's fluff!

Look, if I want to play a monster, I want to play the actual monster It's not even a power issue, as I'd insist the same thing if it left me at a disadvantage (legitimately; LA was just stupid).

I don't want to play a PC race roleplaying as a succubus. I want to play as a succubus who legitimately has to grapple with the fact that she can't know real intimacy because her kiss is a death sentence. I want to play a baby dragon (or whatever) who has to live with the fact that it'll outlive everyone it comes to care about, and will be hunted as a monster as soon as it's capable of paying back the people who took care of it.

I want to play the dryad who has to carry a potted sapling like it was literally her life, desperate to find a place to keep it safe but knowing that doing so means saying goodbye to her traveling companions forever.

I want my species to matter as much as anyone else's for informing my capabilities and roleplaying. Your suggestion that I should just 'pretend' to be a non-PC race because you don't trust me to treat the concept with respect or because you suspect me of being a powergaming jerk is, frankly, condescending and insulting as all hell.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Also because I'd just as soon they work on content that's more widely applicable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy

[Kane0]

I don't think mountain giants, frost worms, black & white slaads or wendigos have been mentioned.

[Fwiffo86]

Y
Look, if I want to play a monster, I want to play the actual monster It's not even a power issue, as I'd insist the same thing if it left me at a disadvantage (legitimately; LA was just stupid).

I don't want to play a PC race roleplaying as a succubus. I want to play as a succubus who legitimately has to grapple with the fact that she can't know real intimacy because her kiss is a death sentence. I want to play a baby dragon (or whatever) who has to live with the fact that it'll outlive everyone it comes to care about, and will be hunted as a monster as soon as it's capable of paying back the people who took care of it.

I want to play the dryad who has to carry a potted sapling like it was literally her life, desperate to find a place to keep it safe but knowing that doing so means saying goodbye to her traveling companions forever.

I want my species to matter as much as anyone else's for informing my capabilities and roleplaying. Your suggestion that I should just 'pretend' to be a non-PC race because you don't trust me to treat the concept with respect or because you suspect me of being a powergaming jerk is, frankly, condescending and insulting as all hell.

I don't mean this as a dig, but I think you should consider playing Rifts then. This is the stuff that setting thrives on.

[eastmabl]

I don't mean this as a dig, but I think you should consider playing Rifts then. This is the stuff that setting thrives on.

With Rifts, there's that whole "lack of balance" issue. You could drive a fire truck through the gap between players.

[Fwiffo86]

With Rifts, there's that whole "lack of balance" issue. You could drive a fire truck through the gap between players.

Which is why playing Monsters works just fine. LOL

[Rogue Shadows]

Say what you want, disallowing options that are supposedly balanced annoys players. Is it an issue you can work around? Of course. But I'd rather they simply didn't include them. It keeps the rules less cluttered, keeps people from trying absurd stuff, and heads off any such disagreement from the start.

'Tis a poor craftsman who blames his tools for a job poorly done.


Okay, minotaurs in dragonlance yes, though they were always different than standard DnD minotaurs.

Ogres? You mean the weird, barely even allowed, practically dead slightly mythical player race of peaceful ogres that was barely ever relevant to the setting or core novels? Lets pretend they were never mentioned, and retcon them.

I also don't recall centaurs being more common in dragonlance than any other setting.

In truth I have never played in nor do I have any interest in playing in DragonLance; however, I did get the DragonLance Campaign Setting book, and centaurs, minotaurs, and a few different types of ogres are all included as viable PC races (as well as draconians, several kinds of elves and dwarves and gnomes, and kender). I'm assuming that any update to the setting would want to keep that.

I do have an interest in playing in Planescape, where monster PCs are not merely common, they are the norm. Hell, think back to Planescape: Torment; the most normal member of the party available was a tiefling. Past that you also had a broken Modron, a lawful neutral succubus, a living portal to the plane of Fire, a floating skull...at the very least you'd need Githyanki and Githzerai. I also have an interest in playing in Eberron, and here we certainly need playable orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears, and things like playable ogres, half-giants, and others wouldn't go wrong as well. Dark Sun? Thri-keen! And we haven't even gotten into the vagaries of a Spelljammer game yet...

At this point we're creating so many new PC races that it just makes more sense to have some kind of standardized process for converting stuff from the Monster Manual.


The issue with monster pcs wasn't the amount of cheese, but how glaringly unrealistic it is to even routinely have a single monster PC per party.

"Unrealistic." Bearing in mind that we're talking about a fantasy setting with dragons and elves and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Pants wherein what is "normal" in one Prime Material could be patently absurd in the next, what exactly is your metric for "unrealistic?"

[Demonic Spoon]

"Unrealistic." Bearing in mind that we're talking about a fantasy setting with dragons and elves and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Pants wherein what is "normal" in one Prime Material could be patently absurd in the next, what exactly is your metric for "unrealistic?"


"Realistic" is probably the wrong word, but you know exactly what he means. Internal consistency is extremely important in (non-terrible) fantasy, and something breaking the internal consistency of the world is actually a problem.

[Rogue Shadows]

"Realistic" is probably the wrong word, but you know exactly what he means. Internal consistency is extremely important in (non-terrible) fantasy, and something breaking the internal consistency of the world is actually a problem.

Sure, but I don't see how the train of logic proceeds from wanting "consistency" to "no official rules for half-ogres should ever be published." Plus, as I pointed out, D&D's plethora of settings over the years have had a host of popular worlds where what is "normal" in one would be absurd in another. The 5E DMG, for example, name-drops the Forgotten Realms, DragonLance, Greyhawk, Eberron, Mystara, Dark Sun, and Birthright, while heavily implying Planescape.

In Eberron, a race of machine-men is kind of normal. In the Realms or Greyhawk, it would be absurd. In Dark Sun Thri-keen are running around as a playable race; in Mystara they're totally out of place. In DragonLance you're expected to have playable minotaurs and centaurs, in the Realms these things don't generally happen, but on the other hand you could very well meet a svirfneblin or duergar on the surface. And in Planescape anything goes.

[Demonic Spoon]

Sure, but I don't see how the train of logic proceeds from wanting "consistency" to "no official rules for half-ogres should ever be published." Plus, as I pointed out, D&D's plethora of settings over the years have had a host of popular worlds where what is "normal" in one would be absurd in another. The 5E DMG, for example, name-drops the Forgotten Realms, DragonLance, Greyhawk, Eberron, Mystara, Dark Sun, Birthright, and Planescape (even if the last is only by implication by mentioning Sigil)


I don't really disagree with any of this, it was mostly a reaction to this part of your statement, which implied (at least to me) that the existence of elves made internal consistency unimportant:


Bearing in mind that we're talking about a fantasy setting with dragons and elves and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Pants


Anyway, if we take the position that the existence of variant rules means that players will browbeat DMs into accepting them at the cost of consistency and balance, we're already hosed, and all future games will be overrun with wearbear/vampire PCs and fighters with 10 base strength and a belt of giants strength they crafted. I don't think we need strict rules for monsters-as-PCs, though. We already have race creation guidelines. I think the only thing missing from the current race creation information is a way to handle races that are outright stronger than others (level adjustment or something like it). It was bad in 3.5, but my gut says that because all classes lose out relatively equally from lost levels, it wouldn't be as bad in 5e. If something good could be constructed, it'd be good to have on hand.

[silveralen]

'Tis a poor craftsman who blames his tools for a job poorly done.

At this point we're creating so many new PC races that it just makes more sense to have some kind of standardized process for converting stuff from the Monster Manual.

"Unrealistic." Bearing in mind that we're talking about a fantasy setting with dragons and elves and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Pants wherein what is "normal" in one Prime Material could be patently absurd in the next, what exactly is your metric for "unrealistic?"

If I'm in charge of building a house, and someone keeps handing out pretty but ultimately impractical tools that are barely functional, if that, to my workers, and I have to keep coming by and taking the broken tools away while giving them the functional ones provided as a matter of course that they find to be too "boring", I'm going to eventually wish that people would simply stop handing out such tools. It isn't like my workers will even enjoy the special tools long term, ultimately it leads to a poorly made house.

Not really. Creating races in 5e is easy. +2, +1, find a racial skill and a few abilities and you are done. Actually having a conversion system would probably take as long.

Gith: +2 dex, +1 wis, mage hand cantrip, twice a day cast jump or feather fall. At lvl 3 cast see shield once per day, at lvl 5 see invisibility once per day.

There, a tiefling without fire resistance or dark vision but some basic spells. Timing it, took me 3 mins to make. Is it perfect? No. I doubt any hard system they create would be perfect either. At least in this case I can adjust it or outright disallow it without causing a player to feel as though I'm trying to screw them over.

Yes, because in most fantasy settings the norm is not two half ogres, mixed with dragon and troll, a lamia, and a psuedo dragon. Even in settings like eberron such a group would be out of place.

[Kane0]

Oh and Behir!

[Rogue Shadows]

Oh and Behir!

There are behir in the 5E Monster Manual, though. Page 25.


If I'm in charge of building a house, and someone keeps handing out pretty but ultimately impractical tools that are barely functional, if that, to my workers, and I have to keep coming by and taking the broken tools away while giving them the functional ones provided as a matter of course that they find to be too "boring", I'm going to eventually wish that people would simply stop handing out such tools. It isn't like my workers will even enjoy the special tools long term, ultimately it leads to a poorly made house.

Yeah, that might work as an analogy, if not for the fact that every other house on the street is being built by different carpenters with the same tool options as you but they're able to keep their workers in line - that is, the same rules have been provided to every DM and the majority of them aren't encountering the same problems as you because they're able to actually deny their players something that they don't want to deal with and deal with the "bad feelings" that result, although in all honesty if your players legitimately have "bad feelings" for you turning down letting them play a kobold paladin with a very high Knowledge (the Planes), then that's a group of players you probably shouldn't be playing with.

Fire the easily-distracted workers and get better ones, to return to the metaphor, while also working on your management skills. And if you can't do that, maybe you shouldn't be in charge of building a house.

[eastmabl]

Which is why playing Monsters works just fine. LOL

I guess? I mean, you can play with monster races in not a completely busted way.

[Eldan]

Agreed. It's bad enough I have to deal with tieflings, drow and (ugh) dragonborn. I don't need players trying to justify were-bear sahaguin adventurers by quoting the MM2.

Agreed. I think anything not covered by the MM can be easily created by modifying another monster. It would be 90% bloat.

You know, that's fine for some campaigns. But not everyone plays in the same worlds or the same styles. Some of us like the weird. Some of us play Planescape. A good edition of D&D should always offer a broad variety of playstyles.

[Fwiffo86]

You know, that's fine for some campaigns. But not everyone plays in the same worlds or the same styles. Some of us like the weird. Some of us play Planescape. A good edition of D&D should always offer a broad variety of playstyles.

I agree with this statement. But unfortunately, most players power grab for the sake of power, not narrative. Always have, always will. And being the nature of roleplayers, they are good at "covering" their tracks amidst justification. You cannot stop them short of Rule 0. If you don't care how unbalanced your game becomes, then by all means, play on through. I for one don't enjoy routinely ruing my weaker player's fun because one person is OP.

I find it more productive to view things in a group, not on a single character level. The entire system of 5e is group based, not single character based like previous editions.

[Rogue Shadows]

You cannot stop them short of Rule 0.

Then you stop them with Rule 0. You're the DM, and you're in charge of the game - says so right on page 4 of the DMG. And one of the most common jobs DMing is compared to is being a referee, or a director. In both those jobs you're required to be able to make final decisions while listening to but by no means obeying the players or actors.

[Maxilian]

What do I want? weresharks! Werebats! Shifters! Werehalflings!

What's a Werehalfling?! :smalleek:




more plant things. sentient house plants. THose guys that can turn into cats. Rules for monster races. Warforged. Eladrin(the 2e kind not the 4e kind) those red australian vampire octopuses. Brownie. SOme more evil fae. Some more realy powerful fae. A couple of those old ones that pacts can be made with. Or at least there spawn(Starspawn cthulhy spawn all that) Dhampyr. Fomarians(were those in there, whatever I like them) Tuatha Dé Danann. SOmething norse inspired.

Well we have the Eladrins as a subrace in the DMG (Don't know if there's the 2e or 4e Eladrin)

[Rfkannen]

What's a Werehalfling?! :smalleek:



Well we have the Eladrins as a subrace in the DMG (Don't know if there's the 2e or 4e Eladrin)

Werehalflings are the most powerful werebeasts on the face of the earth, and the most deadly as well. For example, the tail of the dreaded werehalfling kraken.


Eladrin in 2e were the fae equivalent of demons angels and devils. They even had there own planetouched race.

[Eldan]

Not angels. Archons. Angels are something entirely different. And they were in third edition, too.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree with this statement. But unfortunately, most players power grab for the sake of power, not narrative. Always have, always will. And being the nature of roleplayers, they are good at "covering" their tracks amidst justification. You cannot stop them short of Rule 0. If you don't care how unbalanced your game becomes, then by all means, play on through. I for one don't enjoy routinely ruing my weaker player's fun because one person is OP.

I find it more productive to view things in a group, not on a single character level. The entire system of 5e is group based, not single character based like previous editions.Such a high view of your fellow gamers. Perhaps some of us game with reasonable, trustworthy people who would simply like some codified options.

[Fwiffo86]

Such a high view of your fellow gamers. Perhaps some of us game with reasonable, trustworthy people who would simply like some codified options.

Perfectly valid statement.

However, I see even here, thinly veiled justifications for "more". More spells, More options, More, More, More. My opinion is not colored only by the people I have played with over 20 years. Players power grab. Its a thing. You can view it differently. You may even have been one of the lucky who didn't experience it. But don't for a minute think that your own personal experience is indicative of the community as a whole, poster, or non.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

When I find an RPG promising but lacking features I find important, hell yeah I want more. And more, in this case, isn't necessarily power. It's concepts that can actually be realized within the rule set. The fact that more options means it can be powergamed a little more shouldn't be a block to people who want those options for legitimate reasons.

If you want a munchkin-proof game 4e does a pretty good job, and there are a variety of rules-lite systems that pretty much nip it in the bud.

[silveralen]

Such a high view of your fellow gamers. Perhaps some of us game with reasonable, trustworthy people who would simply like some codified options.

Playing since 2nd edition, I've seen literally a single player want a monster PC for purely roleplay, rather than power grab reasons.

[Justin Sane]

Y'all need to find a) less sweeping generalizations and b) better players.

[Rogue Shadows]

Playing since 2nd edition, I've seen literally a single player want a monster PC for purely roleplay, rather than power grab reasons.

Even "power grab" is not a good excuse. Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion is an incredibly powerful spell (your own personal demiplane that only you and the people you designate can enter? I'll take three), but I don't hear you objecting to it being included in 5th Edition. Wizard has always been a powerful class choice, but you've yet to object to it.

Plenty of us have been playing since 2nd Edition, silveralen, we've seen all the same things you have. I remember the time my players tried to convince me that it was totally possible for them to build an improvised cannon within 3 rounds in order to shoot down an airship using nothing more than a hollow wagon axle, some fireworks, and a big rock. I have yet to embark upon a crusade to try and get rocks banned from D&D, however.

For the record, by the way, I set some fairly high Craft DCs and rolled a d% each of the three rounds to see if the thing just broke (75% each round). It didn't. It just also failed to do any real damage to the airship they were attacking. Such is life.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Playing since 2nd edition, I've seen literally a single player want a monster PC for purely roleplay, rather than power grab reasons.Almost all of the monstrous options in 3e (and pretty much all of them in core) were so vastly over-costed that the only reason you'd pick them was roleplay, or a misunderstanding of racial hit dice. Sure, there were a few broken ones that came out, often low-LA templates printed in some fluff-heavy FR book, but you could just as easily identify players using those templates, not monstrous characters in general. In 4e the monstrous options like Minotaurs functioned about the same as PC races. So unless there was some broken monstrosity back in the TSR days, or if you played with munchkins who didn't understand the game very well, I'm not sure how you ended up with your jaded view of monstrous PCs.

[Naanomi]

So unless there was some broken monstrosity back in the TSR days
Humanoid Handbook Pixies, Firbolgs/Ogres/Minotaur, Flinds, and Kobolds had some degenerate options; and setting specific races were often wonky (Dragonlance Minotaur, Darksun Mul, Half-Giant, Thri-Kreen); but 'balance' was a pretty foreign concept back then anyways

[Mrmox42]

I would like to see a rebirth of the (very) old-style Living Statue from the red book Basic D&D.

They were replaced with Golems, but were actually something quite different.

[Belkarseviltwin]

Not all of them have to be epic-level, either. They could throw in stats for some mid-level villains like Strahd Von Zarovich or Acererak if they wanted to.

EDIT: Bonus points if the stats are for the decoy "Acererak" instead of the actual Demilich.

I think Acererak is actually statted in the MM- the sidebar to the Demilich entry gives the difference between him and a normal demilich.

Things I want to see:
Barghests
Bodaks
The higher-level Modrons
Warforged (including as a PC race)
Skum
Shocker Lizards
Giant Squid

[Inevitability]

Giant Squid

Giant Octopus is already a creature. How different would a Giant Squid be?

[Kinneus]

All I really missed were entries for normal elves/dwarves/what-have-you (I know I could just reskin the NPCs in the back, but I'm lazy) and the atropal... my favorite terrifying "oh god kill it with fire" big bad evil mind-screw monster.

[silveralen]

Almost all of the monstrous options in 3e (and pretty much all of them in core) were so vastly over-costed that the only reason you'd pick them was roleplay, or a misunderstanding of racial hit dice. Sure, there were a few broken ones that came out, often low-LA templates printed in some fluff-heavy FR book, but you could just as easily identify players using those templates, not monstrous characters in general. In 4e the monstrous options like Minotaurs functioned about the same as PC races. So unless there was some broken monstrosity back in the TSR days, or if you played with munchkins who didn't understand the game very well, I'm not sure how you ended up with your jaded view of monstrous PCs.

Yes, and do you know how many times I saw the subpar ones? Never. Literally never. A few people would ask for "fixed" versions of such races they found somewhere, which were often worse than even the printed power grabs. The fact of the matter is I don't see much demand.

It's fine if we get monstrous races as actual options balanced as PC races, the 4e method actually made sense. I still dislike having the vast majority of racial options become exotic, and power creep often causes such characters to become the norm (4e actually used errata to help this I'd note), but that's the best approach by far.

The TSR days barely included a concept of balance. Much as with level adjustments in 3.5, the big thing was a cap on levels from a class. Which typically meant a number of races could destroy the game till they hit their level cap, after which they eventually become useless as time went on, though a few were so powerful this never really happened and multiclassing could minimize it further.

[Freelance GM]

I think Acererak is actually statted in the MM- the sidebar to the Demilich entry gives the difference between him and a normal demilich.

Things I want to see:
Barghests
Bodaks
The higher-level Modrons
Warforged (including as a PC race)
Skum
Shocker Lizards
Giant Squid

I meant the version of "Acererak" that shows up on the cover of the DMG- the Lich decoy.

I've got a large group of new players who don't know about the Demilich thing. It's a little late, because of the MM blurb, but it would have been fun to try to "re-mystify" the whole thing for their sake. Imagine running the Tomb of Horrors for a group that doesn't know all of its tricks, and the reaction they'll have a few days/weeks/months later when one of them happens to find out it doesn't end with the dungeon caving in.

Then again... None of them have read the Monster Manual...

[3SecondCultist]

I'd definitely look for monsters that are organized: 3.5 had stats for different ranks of hobgoblin society, for instance. I want to see monstrous societies, not just things in caves that adventurers bash in with swords and fry with spells.

[mephnick]

I did go looking for a barghest today for an encounter and was shocked that it wasn't in the book.

So I amend my earlier dismissal of a MM2.

[Flashy]

I'd definitely look for monsters that are organized: 3.5 had stats for different ranks of hobgoblin society, for instance. I want to see monstrous societies, not just things in caves that adventurers bash in with swords and fry with spells.

I'm sort of confused by this. 5e's MM has hobgoblin, hobgoblin captain and hobgoblin warlord. 3.5's has a generic hobgoblin entry, with no alternate stat blocks or abilities for various ranks. The society blurb from 3.5 is much the same as the general description provided in 5e. What is 5e missing that 3.5 had?