So I saw a comment in another thread about complaining about all the D&D Monsters and the changes in 5e specifically, and I saw no one had actually made the suggested thread (or... it got buried? Dunno. Don't care...), so I figured I'd kick it off. Because if there is one thing I'm good at, its finding shit to bitch about. That and swearing. Ok, if there are two things I'm good at....
Aight. So the 'ground rules'. I'm only talking monsters here, not general bitching about 5e changes in general. Me? I just grabbed the MM and I'ma go through it in order, but by all means feel free to hit up Volo's and Mordenkainen's books or what have you. I expect an unfair fight. Biting, spitting and eye gouging and general uncharitable takes for the lulz. I expect to see NO gentlemanly conduct... also, since I don't currently have a copy of the previous editions MM's handy don't expect much in the comparison with older editions.
Aarakocra: Could that name BE any harder to spell? Seriously: Its bird men. One of several examples of Bird Men in D&D. Bird men are inherently boring and stupid. Also, these guys are 'default good guys' which I feel is a gross misuse of alignment and monsters in game. But they also lead me to my first general complaint with the 5e Monster model: by default an Aarakocra is a low level 'gang up to handle a party of 1st level characters' sort of 'threat'. 5e has removed the tools a GM could use to easily and consistently beef up an intelligent 'race' type critter, like the Aarakocra, by giving them levels and what not. While I CAN, eventually, work up some house rules for getting back to that state, I shouldn't have to. 5e seems to consistently hamstring the GM by assuming that we're all happy to play with the already finished products they deign to give us, instead of leaving us the basic building blocks we need to make our own shit.
Aboleth: Meh. I mean, the write up is... okay? It lacks the charm I recall from older Aboleths, and now they seem to be some sort of psuedo-elemental immortals? In a game with soul stealing magic/magic items I feel like if you're gunna write some shit like that into your monster write ups, you better have a good idea how that sort of thing will interact with that other sort of thing, yanno? Also, Legendary and Lair actions. I... think... Legendary actions are a good edition to the game, in concept. In execution, however, they are BADLY lacking. Partly because they are over-used. This probably requires a bit more discussion, so I'll leave it flopping there like a beached aboleth...
Angels: In specific the write up regarding Fallen Angels calls into question the entire concept of aligned planes, theological implications of beings like Angels 'falling' with no real attempt to write up about Demons/Devils etc 'Falling' (Rising?), which I suppose is a delightfully nihilistic view of reality, where evil only prospers because only the good can 'fall'. Later we discover (in teh Decent in Avernus 'module' that a blow to the head can create brain damage that changes a devil's alignment. The metaphysical implications of that throw away encounter are.... not good.). Then you have the three 'angels' listed (Devas, planetars, Solars), which is another general complaint about the entire book: It feels so 'thin' in selection compared to the rich source materials available, like too much space was wasted on bullshit, so the list has been pared down. Unfair you say? Read the damn rules!
Animated Objects: You know? I miss having 'universal' rules concepts like 'Constructs' or 'Undead' meta-rules. Instead we have to go case by case and learn/look up the specific immunities of every related critter. See the Aarakocra entry for more on this thread.
Ankheg: Here I'll complain about the artwork (beautiful I guess, but also somehow less informative than the older art), AND the bizzare rules-lite/narrative bullet point style entries that have replaced the old style 'beastiary' style entries. Instead of telling me about the Ankheg critter, its a long text entry to remind me of what the rules already say (they burrow). While taking roughly the same amount of space it somehow conveys less than a tenth of the information, outside of being redundant to the actual monster entry.
Azer: We can get redundant here, but I'll refrain. Instead I'll comment on how small the new edition makes the planar universe of D&D. Instead of being told Azer are rare/reclusive etc, allowing for vast hidden numbers in teh infinite expanses of the Elemental Plane of Fire (or what have you), we are instead told that they are few in number because of how they reproduce. Boo.
Banshee: You can't tell me that Banshee can't stand to see their own reflection and NOT include some sort of rule, no matter how thin, about what happens if a party busts out a mirror when fighting one. Barbarian rage? Forgets to use her powers in favor of clawing randomly? Targets only the mirror until it breaks? C'mon bro! Do you even DM?
Basalisk: Ima Grammer Nazi up this bitch. The write up for Petrifying Gaze more or less starts with 'the basalisk can force a con save'. This is a vastly inferior way to replace the old metric of 'if a character meets the basalisks gaze they must make a con save'. And on that note, I find it a bit weird that the idea is that a tough bastard can just shrug off being turned to stone because 'steroids', when the metric should be 'avoiding gaze' which... honestly?... seems like a wisdom thing. I say that as a 'pro-fighter' sort of player. Also, teh text suggests that the typical statues seen around basalisk lairs are 'warriors'. You know: with their 'Proficient' Con saves? I mean, even a first level fight with a middling Con should have better than even odds of resisting petrification.
Behir: So... they don't speak common, but we get a comment (presumably in common) from a behir. Also they apparently use their full AC against swallowed targets trying to cut their way out (and on that note: Where are the rules for properly cutting oneself out of being swallowed? What's this regurgitate crap?). Lastly... crap, I forgot. Forget I said lastly, m'kay?
Beholders: If I've got this right, Beholders went from being a standard run of the mill 'high level monster' to being some sort of god-things. I'd guess a lot of this comes from supplimentary write ups in previous editions, but now its all right there, taking up what looks like a fucking mini-chapter of the book. Aight, if you love you some flying eye monsters, but honestly I prefer my beholders to be on the margins of D&D, not front and fucking center. Also, I find beholders to be inherently self contradictory... D&D can't decide if they are supposed to be antisocial paranoid Objectivist Hero solo monsters, or highly social autocratic god-king monsters.
Blights: I can't even. What is this Gulthias Tree nonsense? Is this a widely spread generic monster or a module specific unique threat?
Bugbears: Honestly? Read earlier entries or pick up... um... volo? Mordenkainen? Which ever it is where they get a much more detailed write up.
Bulette: Am I the only one who really thinks they should just stick with the Land Shark name? Put them in the L section, assholes.
Bullywug: Same problem as every other intelligent monster race: GIve me the damn tools to tinker with them (you know: smoothly and properly add class levels or what have you...). Also we have a sort of self contradiction: The Bullywugs, we are told, are highly sociable in that they see themselves as 'kings', and tend to perform a mockery of etiquette and so on when interacting with other races, right on for an evil monster race... but then you notice that the only language they speak is... Bullywug. Sloppy. Really damn sloppy.
Cambions: I have felt, for some time, that the Cambions are an unfortunate 'appendix' sort of legacy monster, what with all the half fiends and tieflings running around, they don't really fit in the legendarium the way they used to. If this was a fair and honest thread I might say something about how at least 5e appears to be attempting to use them fully, but that ain't happenin here, bucko. Cambions reinforce the notion that we're missing rules for tweaking monsters, given that one of their rules is little more than a footnote to their AC. Way to remind us we lack the tools inherent in 3e's model to tweak monsters properly, bruh.
Carrion Crawler: I hate the artwork.
Centaur: Yay! another 'good' 'monster' race with no rules to tweak them to the party's level other than increasing the number used. 5e really is the 'for dummies' edition, innit?
Chimera: Let me get this straight... its a dumb beast monster that is susceptable to flattery? The write up spends more time being the chimera's psychotherapist than anything else.
Chuul: So... am I the only one that finds it insultingly redundant that we need to be told the Chuul are immune to the Condition "Poisoned" literally right after we were told they were immune to the damage 'Poison'? Is that where our society is at now? Is this how far we've fallen as a people? Why are the Chuul giving me an existential crisis? What does it all mean? Also something something about mis-using spells for senses and thus having rules crisis that were easily avoidable... but lets save that for another entry...
Cloakers: A monster whose entire schtick is to pretend to be something ordinary and interesting (cloaks, in a game with lots of magic cloaks..). Lets give it artwork that utterly ruins the illusion, lets make it ogre sized, so it couldn't possibly perform its innate schtick without violating the laws of internal logic, and generally miss the motherfucking point entirely by trying to make it a combat beast that flys around looking for adventurers to fight. Do I have that right?
Cockatrice: We have so little idea what to say or do about petrification chickens that we literally filled three quarters of the page with a picture of said petrification chicken. Enjoy.
Couatl: Oh, goody. Another 'good' monster race, and another pan-dimensional godling race that somehow makes a mockery of the supposed infinitity of the outer planes (instead of elemental planes) by being described as 'few in number'. So... once again the infinite possibilities of the planes is shrunk down by measly and miserly reproductive logistics. Bro, do you even infinity, bro?
Crawling Claw: Why are they immune to Turning or being controlled by necromantic magic (okay, that later part is only in the fluff text, but that's a separate complaint entirely!). No, seriously: This is a fundamental function of undeadedness, that divine/positive energy channelled by clerics and shit is their great weakness. Why is this, lowest of the low of necromantic creations, immune to something that is more than a mere nuisance to, I dunno... liches and shit? THis is 'ad hoc' magic, magic tea party shit. You are casually breaking the metaphysical laws that govern your magic system just because. DON'T.DO.THAT.
Cyclops: For funsies, read the opening fluff bullet point on 'nonreligous', then read the last paragraphs of the bullet point 'unsophisticated'. Self contradict we much? Also there is something patently absurd about any intelligent race rejecting religion in a world where the gods are provably real, actively engaged in the world at large, and also explicitly (since Faerun is now default) punish non-believers for all eternity for the sin of being nonreligious. D&D, I gotta ask you why you keep hitting yourself in the face like this? Its embarrassing.
Darkmantles: Seriously: You couldn't think of anything interesting to say about flying choke monsters? I learned in 3e days that any level of adventuring party could be made to hate and fear a sudden attack of darkmantles, but that mostly came down to the grappling rules I think. Damnit, now I gotta read up on grappling in 5e so I can properly understand this monster again. Damn you, 5e MM, damn you...
Death Knight: The classic. One of the more powerful gribblies in teh game, and clearly a monster that should have a sweeping and interesting back-story, but their write up is so bland, boring and unevocative you can be forgiven for assuming they are high-level fodder mobs to be killed in droves with a hint of a yawn at the mundane task of clearing trash.
Demilich: Its a skull that drains your soul. It sits there. Oddly, its challenge rating is less than the Death Knights, yet for all that it gets so much more detail and interest from the writer that its maddening that this is the very next entry. This is the sort of treatment the Death Knight should have gotten a page ago.
Demons and Devils: I could write paragraphs on each of these monsters, but in the name of brevity, I'll merely point out how fucking annoying it is that the fluffy paragraphs on each entry are organized away from the picture/rule box for each demon and devil. As an unfair side note: While I won't complain about the lack of entries on the various lords/princes in the Monster Manual, I WILL complain that they've managed to republish the same damn lord/devil entries in multiple other books instead of just making a singular resource for them (such as a Monster Manual 2, maybe?), making the game line, in general, so much harder to use.
Dinosaurs: Honestly? I've never really liked Dinosaurs in my D&D. that's me. On the other hand, if you are going to put 'Dinosaurs' as an entry in your Monster Manual, you could at least.. I dunno... pretend like you care? This is probably the prize winner for 'least fucks given' in an entry yet. Might as well have shuffled them in the appendix with all the dogs and chickens.
Displacer Beast: Ok, so I'm down with a Feywild origin for Displacer Beasts, and a reminder of their classic feud with Blink Dogs. That being the case, why are they still listed as monstrosities instead of 'fey'? Also, I notice Blink Dogs are shuffled into the back alongside ordinary dogs, but the Displacer Beast is still a proper monster. Not that D-Beasts should be rendered unto the appendix, just that it sort of reminds us of how badly conceived the organizational properties of this book/game line are...
Doppleganger: Least.Evocative.Artwork.Yet. Bland 'monster man' image that a PC should never, ever see (without high level magic like True Sight, anyway), no indication of their shapechanging ways in the art. Seriously? You paid for 'quality' full color artwork for the entire book, but couldn't be assed to ensure that dopplegangers were shown disgusing themselves as someone else... you know... like every other edition took the effort to do? Seriously? Also the 'bullet point' on Changlings leaves me with... questions. Too many questions. Its insulting that a tossed off bulletpoint is far more evocative than the actual art that should be depicting the critter in its natural state.
Dracolich: Actually: this is the first entry in the Dragon sub-chapter, only these lazy fucks couldn't be bothered to actually note that this is the dragon sub-chapter. You know, like they did for Devils and Demons, and like every other edition of D&D did. This means we're subject to pages of redundant rules and sloppy organization, all of which reduces dragons to one of the less important monsters in a game literally named after Dragons. Very sad. Presentation matter, yo.
Drider: Honestly: I'd rather have seen these grouped with the Drow. I don't care much for Drider in general, so I'm not going to go any deeper than that.
Dryads: Just a reminder that D&D is corporate and family friendly now. You are not permitted to see tiddies, citizen.
Deurgar: Just a reminder that 5e is badly organized. If you want your Deurgar fix, pick up the adventure module Out of the Abyss instead. Repeat tired complaint about stripping out the DMs tools for tweaking intelligent race type 'monsters'.
Elementals: I vaguely recall that in 3e, maybe in prior editions, you could adjust the power, size and hit die of Elementals as desired. Not anymore, citizen. You WILL use Large Elementals, and they WILL have 12 Hit Die and they WILL BE challenge Rating 5. We clone them that way, you see?
Elves: Drow: No, seriously, that is how they are written up. Look up Elves, find only Drow in their own mini-subchapter. Seriously though: You could take the page count in this heading alone for various examples of Drow and use those same pages to write up basic rules for tweaking monsters, giving class levels to individual monsters (and how to adjust challenge ratings), and be fucking done with it, but no. Instead you get pre-digested pablum entries. I will note, unfairly perhaps (read the rules...) that the corrolarry to this is that so many adventures have entries that literally say 'Drow Priestess', adn expect you to come here, to this book, to look up the pre-digested pablum entry for that critter, compared to the much more accessable methodology of actually putting relevant (and unique) stat blocks for individual monsters/NPCs right where the DM needed them. Pablum D&D by lazy designers.
Empyreans: Challenge Rating 23. Entry like a bland, fightable monster. Fluffy bulletpoint regarding 'Evil Empyreans' is orthogonally at odds with D&D cosmology (which includes, I'll remind you, Evil Gods. Empyreans being the children of Gods...).
Ettercap: honestly the best part of the entire text is the last bulletpoint about enemies of the fey. Other than that, its a servicable monster with a bland and somewhat confusing idea of how it should be used... monster despoilers of nature or sneaky assassin ninjas. Pick a lane.
Ettins: Again: Do the designers of D&D know anything about D&D's methodology for classifying monsters? I mean Ettin are written up as Giants, but then we are told they are demon-cursed Orcs. I mean: I get it, sure. Demogorgon has two heads and is crazy, but Giants have the Ordening and their own gods and history... not every 'big man-thing' is A Giant.
Fairy Dragon: I'm just going to point out here (and again later, because I'm an asshole) that Psuedo-dragons are also an entry in this very book.
Flameskulls: See, this is the art demiliches should have got. Also, I'm not sure the writers are very clear on how smart/personable Flameskulls are supposed to be, so I, as a player/DM/reader am also not entirely clear on how smart/personable (Yes, yes... I can clearly see they have a (...) 16 Int) they are supposed to be.
Flumph: So... the weakest, least offensive joke monster in the history of the game, a memetic monster if you will, now gets a serious write up as a real monster? Um... okay? Also not a threat, but somehow I feel like the joke went over the writers' heads.
Fomorian: So. Are the cursed feywild beings of huge size, or are they huge giants who lived in the feywild? See also: Ettins. No, I'm not going to look it up elsewhere, this book is supposed to tell me these things properly.
Fungi: You know... I don't think its a great idea to make a sub-chapter for Fungi, and then just group some (not all) of the various fungi monsters into that sub-chapter. Either make a proper fungi chapter or don't, but this six of one, half dozen of the other shit is not going to cut it in my book.
Galeb Dur: This is, and has ever been, a dumb monster. Some reason it seems to be very popular with the current crop of writers, which is sinful enough that I'm not even going to bother reading the entry to say more.
Gargoyles: For some reason they aren't happy with 'animate statues that kill you' and they feel the need to really give Gargoyles a 'big treatment'. Yay for Ogremech origin lore? Huzzah! They be elemental beings now? Sure, whatever. Animate statue things that kill you vs. Animate Statue things that kill you+. Nah, adding the plus doesn't improve it.
Genies: Honestly? Since they did a sub-chapter thing for elementals, why didn't they go all out and cover the spectrum of elementals instead of giving us four blandly identical themed elementals? What I'm saying is that Genies are Elementals. THere seems to be a chronic (all editions) mishandling of the cosmology of D&D when it comes to Elementals and the Elemental Planes, that always manifests in writeups of, well, Genies. Here is the 5e version of that endless fail.
Ghosts: why do they have Etherial Sight? Is that a thing now for ghosts? Incorporeal beings in general? Should this be some sort of universal rule for interactions between incorporeal beings and the etherial plane? I think it should be. Instead we will get endless ad hoc special case treatments that will inevitibly cause rule cruft. All because some asshole thought ghosts should have etherial sight.
Ghouls: Oh, goody. Ghasts have been folded in. Since, in D&D/Faerun, Ghouls are now supposed to be the manifest creation of Doresain, much as Gnolls are supposed to be the manifest creations of Yeenoghu... why isn't that actually mentioned in their write up? Just sayin'.
Giants: So nice big sub-chapter, covering all that stuff I've been saying regards to other 'giants' already in the book (and more to come, I'm sure...). And since they are intelligent, and other books will have special custom class giant variants of the existing giants, this means you can plug in the standard, repetitive complaint about the lack of support for DMs here. There you go.
Gibbering Mouther: So... yeah. It exists. Does anyone else get a weird incestuous vibe from Warhammer's Chaos Spawn here? I do. Someone break the cycle before it happens again!
Gith: Now a core monster, despite having little to no impact on Faerun in its entire history (I'd be perfectly happy to give a dissertation on why Faerun is the worst of all possible choices for Core D&D, but honestly). Insert standard refrains about DM Tools, rinse repeat, make sure to lather up good along the way. Despite getting four pages, somehow it feels hollow compared to the much simpler days of the Fiend Folio.
Gnolls: Making them a sort of mortal demonic sub-race is one of those things that just chaps my hide like few other changes in the entire book. So much so that I'm actually going to say very little on the subject simply to keep my blood pressure low, and this post to something akin to a managable size. Also, they get a much... more involved... write up in the... tome of foes? (mordenkainen?). Repeat other standard complaints.
Gnome, Deep: Um... yeah. rinse, repeat. cycle. Then again, they've always been sort of an afterthought, more so than most of the 'underdark variant pc races'.
Goblins: I have mixed opinions on the new art design, so given the nature of this thread, lets say I hate it. Also we have teh same issue as the bugbears and later the hobgoblins (along with teh gnolls, duegar and on and on and on...). And honestly, now that I think about it, shouldn't there be a 'goblinoid' sub-chapter? I mean just about everything else gets one?
Golems: Subchapter. Boring. Also: why not universal construct rules? Nothing to see here, move along.
Gorgons: Never mind the sheer mindboggling insanity (Dating back to Saint E.G.G, hallowed be thy name...), of making Gorgons giant iron plated poison gas bull monsters... gorgons are giant iron plated poison gas bull monsters. What I wanna know though is: Are they delicious?
Grell: I'm pretty sure these were relegated to the 'curious idea' compendium that was the Fiend Folio, but somehow they've lept into the big leagues, getting an entry in the main (only) Monster Manual. This feels like Monster Affirmative Action.
Grick: See Grell.
Griffons: Unaligned, which should instantly make you wonder why so many other monster things are not also unaligned. Also, since these days they seem mostly domesticated in D&D lands (being trainable mounts, and wild griffons are more viewed by sensible adventurers as a source for eggs for trainable mounts than 'threats') why they haven't been shuffled into an appendix along with the dogs and chickens and shit. Like the Blink Dogs.
Grimlocks: Ah, the perfectly bland and boring 'blink cafe dwelling morlock men' entry. Meh. Hard pass from me. No. Wait: Faerun is Core Now, so why haven't you mentioned that the Grimlocks of Faerun are relatives of the Uthgardt tribes of the surface? Way to not use your own lore, assholes.
Hags: Subchapter. Utterly fails to reconcile how these low challenge monsters are such power players in D&Ds cosmology. You know, like inventing the entire Yugoloth 'class' of 'demons'? Like... seriously there is a narrative convention that Hags are talky talky monsters not stabby-stabby monsters, and that puts their power level on opposite ends of a wide spectrum.
Half Dragon: Read the Cambion entry, only replace Tiefling with Dragonborn and also remove any hint that the D&D writers are actually trying to make the Half-Dragon relevant to the setting. Done.
Harpy: Take a generic, well trod monster and suddenly add, for no reason, a deep and... umm... compelling?... backstory involving two different gods and some unnamed 'dread power' because god knows there aren't enough monsters in D&D that actually need that sort of thing but aren't getting it. Also remember the Dryad entry? Here are your corporate approved monster-girl Tiddies, Citizen. Sort of. Fuckin' tease.
Hell Hound: Remember back in the Angel entry when I talked about how nihilistic the setting is if only Good Guys can change sides? Remember when I mentioned that there is a canon Devil that turned good because of a motherfucking HEAD INJURY? Remember when I mentioned the stupidity of the Crawling Hand being immune to Turning, and what that implies about the cosmological rules governing magic and internal logic? Yeah: Hellhounds have a paragraph explaining that they are 'evil to the core' and can never be anything other than a mad-dog killer, untrainable. You know: except for all those evil things that will, inevitably, use trained hellhounds at some point.
Helmed Horror: You know, way back in teh beginning I dealt with the Animated Objects, which includes Animated Armor. This is just... a second type of Animated Armor.
Hippogryph: See Griffon
Hobgoblin: See Goblin. See Bugbear. On the other hand, they do get a pretty serious write up which reflects the actual danger an organized society of evil dicks actually should pose to a fantasy setting (more so than rampaging violence fetishests (orcs, I'm looking at you...) do, which only serves to highlight how little value anyone actually places on Hobgoblins in their fantasy settings based on D&D. Ah... what could have been...
Homunculus: I... have no idea where they are going with the artwork. Is it... supposed to be Porg-cute? IS IT Porg-Cute? No, no...
Hook Horror: A signature D&D classic Monster that feels so very out of place in modern D&D. Also... they are sympathetic and freindly in OUt of the Abyss? What even is this?
Hydra: Reads Entry. Notes role of Tiamat. Notes name check for Leraean. Checks alignment... Unaligned. Sigh.
Intellect Devourer: Cute little doggo-brain things. Notes also that psionics are not really a thing in 5e. In fact they seem to be an anti-thing now. Pets cute-little-doggo-brain thing before euthanizing it as pointless.
Invisible Stalker: Is now an Air Elemental. Notes that teh art makes it super-visible. Notes, once more, that 5e designers appear to hate classic D&D.
Jacklewere: So, why not a Lycanthrope Sub-chapter? Also: Does anyone actually care about jackleweres? I mean: werebears, werewolves, wereBOAR!... and then you have a fucking jacklewere. Just... don't.
Kenku: Ah, our second intelligent, possibly playable, bird-men race. If I were being fair I might give them points for creativity in how they are presented, but mostly I'm irritated how this minor niche race seems to have risen to 'core', and is now everywhere. Also: You have to play them like Bumblebee the Transformer, talking in radio-quote. Fuck you, D&D. Neither I, as DM, will do this, nor will I allow a player to do this, because I value my time and/or sanity too much. Take your bird-kender transformer and fuck right the hell off.
Kobolds: You know, in classic mythology, Kobolds are not dog-lizard things, but more like hairy gnomes. Knowing that, I can never ever take D&D kobolds seriously. Also, repeat standard comment about intelligent monster races here.
Kracken: Fuck-heug sea monster, two page write up for an incredibly niche threat. Also, apparently you're supposed to find them in lairs? So we expect players are planning vast undersea campaigns actively hunting these things because... reasons?
Koa-Toa: I'll repeat the same refrain. Got it? Ok, moving on: Read the fluffy bullet point on God-Makers. Refer to standard issue rants about internal logic of teh cosmology. Realize D&D's creative team are shit writers and repent for all your various misdeeds. Preferabbly before a made up god that the Koa-Toa just wished into being, utterly wrecking your entire metaphysical model of reality because you couldn't make weird fish-men interesting in their own right.
Lamia: Such a low challenge boss monster its painful. Also notes that Grazz't is now the single most name-checked divinity (Demon Lord, whatever) in the entire setting. For some fucking reason.
Lich: Again: this is the sort of write up the Death Knights deserved. Also recalls that D&D is now explicitly Faerun because dumb reasons, which is a setting chock full of Liches acting like living high powered wizards and realize that the write up for liches is utterly disconnected from the setting being used. Again.
Lizardfolk: Redundant scaled race with the usual problem of 5e not understanding how to use intelligent monster races.
Lycanthropes: Oh look... they DO get a sub-chapter. Whoda thunkit?
Magmin: Another type of Elemental that belongs in an Elemental subchapter. Also, like their cousins the various mephits, they seem to be wildly more popular with the writers/designers than they do with players/DMs...
Manticore: haha.. I want to call it a manticorp. The drawing is inexplicably goofy looking.
Medusa: You know: the write up seems to imply that Medusas are Pretty, and that just reads all sorts of wrong. We also see a return of the 'forced' language for saving throws, which was discussed earlier. Fuck you with your pretty medusas, d&d...
mephits: Small, intelligent, always evil elementals that show up in every product ever produced by D&D (or so it feels) and never, ever in a home-brewed adventure. Your personal anecdotal example of a home-brewed mephit based adventure is invalid.
Merfolk: included because, well, you sorta have to, I guess? With all the verve adn energy that sort of 'well, we gotta, right?' implies.
Merrow: hilariously the next entry is a much more evocative D&D version of merfolk. So yay for redundancy?
Mimic: D&D has a whole host of these sort of Meta-Monsters, including teh earlier entry of the Cloaker, and honestly the entire lot should have been taken out behind the chemical shed about three or four editions ago.
Mind Flayer: I touched on this earlier but 5e needs to make a choice between gutting psionics utterly or including all these psionic monsters. This vague handwavium of 'its a sort of spell casting' and burying your head in teh sand like a fucking lobster (I know...) is just making the problem worse.
Minotaurs: Now the demonic minions of baphomet. See also Gnolls. Slightly less annoying than the earlier example, but only slightly.
Modrons: Everyones least favorite extraplanar alignment exemplar is back, and now in Core! Oh hey, did you know that the Great Modron March is now an often repeated bit of lore for D&D, mentioned every single fuckign time Modrons are mentioned (Which is... far to fucking often). Oh yeah, and if you want to know MORE about it, well have I got great news for you! The Planescape module that actually covers that is long out of print, and sells for the super-cheap price of 150 dollars on Amazon! Or, you know, you can wait until sixth edition when they finally either remove Modrons again, or actually print a new set of lore covering it.
Mummy: Liches and Demiliches get two pages each. Deathknights get one very sparse page. Mummies get four pages. You might be forgiven for thinking mummies are the be all end all of Undead in D&D. But nope, in 5e they are closer to construct/mindless trap undead, just more powerful. Mummies just love to spend centuries or millennia hanging out in sarcophagi just waitign to be disturbed so they can wreck yo shit, while the other powerful undead pursue... I dunno... kinghood or godhood, or just wander teh astra plane like the world's oldest stoners. Four fuckign pages. [Editors Note: the writer of this post was so needlessly angry that he forgot how to count. Its three pages. THREE. Not Four. His argument in invalid, enjoy your day.]
Myconids: DIdn't we have a Fungus Entry earlier? We did? Well. Have a new one. Another minority niche monster raised to core status because... reasons. No, having a big old adventure book set in the Underdark totally isn't the reason why the core rules had to be warped, why would you think that? Oooh...look. Talking Mushrooms! How... Exciting!
Nagas: This... is one of those entries where they cut everythign to the bone, then tried to do too many things with what was left. Ancient enemies of the Yaun-ti, evil and good versions in teh same entry, blah, blah... have your magical snake man rules and be happy that the writing isn't trying to moebius the setting into eating its own ass.
Nightmares: Evil steeds. See also Griffons
Nothic: I... what even is this and why is it in the main Monster Manual? I need more booze to talk about this, and I'm busy drinking coffee right now, so you'll have to make up your own vitriol here, I can't even bother.
Ogres: I hate the new artwork. I hate that we need entirely redundant rule entries to cover 'ogre with a battering ram', 'ogre with a ballista' and 'ogre with goblins riding him like a pony'. This is even worse than the standard 'intelligent monster refrain', because we aren't actually changing the ogres at all, just changing their equipment. This is a bad design decision on every level. [Editor's Note: Don't believe him. He is drinking heavily. He clearly didn't bother to read the Ogre Entry before posting, since all those sub-classes are actually in a different book. Another invalid entry, clearly.]
Half Ogre: Also known as the Ogrillion. Sometimes the blandly descriptive name is used, sometimes the stupid wierd name is used (See also Bulette). Pick a fucking lane, D&D writers. God damnit!
Oni: Also known as the Ogre Magi. See Half Ogre. Also this is D&D trying to have its cake and eat it too, since they have always played a coy game of 'is it, isn't it' with the whole Ogre thing, despite being demonstrably NOT a D&D ogre, which only makes an interesting monster bland and boring due to confused writing.
Oozes: Now a sub chapter. Always my least favorite monster type, and not just because they are ecologically suspect on the face of it. Behold the mighty adventurer, Conan, laid low by a slime mold. Fuck you EGG.
Orcs: Redundanty Chaos Hobgoblins, much as with the devil/demon divide. Only one half of the split can really be interesting, making the other half forced to be boring in the shadow of the more compelling example. Somehow in D&D land the more interesting example is always the chaotic one, because organized evil is somehow less scary than wild savage mindless beast evil. How depressing.
Otyugh: Somehow the goofy ass old artwork was far more compelling than the weirdly self-consciously serious take on it in this book. This is not a serious monster that needs to fill an ecological/evolutionary niche... its a magical abberation that should be vaguely disgusting and goofy looking at the same time.
Owlbear: Ditto. Now it is literally a four legged owl. Sigh. Also they are doing their damnedest to make them tameable critters now, so we can start shuffling them into the same 'needs to be in the appendix with the blink dogs' we are doing to the griffons. Yay for progress!!!
Pegasus: Speaking of griffons....
Peryton: The return of a classic. Minus the strange shadow shenanigans, because why not? They seem to have that strange 'writer fave' thing going on for them that I've mentioned earlier, adn I hate that about them.
Piercer: What the everliving fuck, D&D?! That doesn't look at all like a rock monster stalagtite thing. It looks like a fuckign worm. By Saint EGG, I curse thee!!!!
Pixie: Now they are nice fairies for some reason. Pacifists and shit. SO... not... monsters?
Psuedo-dragon: See Also Fairy-Dragon. I know D&D has created an awful lot of redundant shit in their long reign of terror over the fantasy gaming landscape, but if you were only going to put in ONE Monster Manual (instead of the three or four of previous editions...) why in gods name would you actually include multiple entries for what is functionally the same goddamn critter!
Purple Worm: Its a penis joke. Need I say more? Fine. For some idiot-savant reason, the writers took the time to tell us that the... helmeted love warrior... is not just a monster that eats you, but that it fulfills a valuable ecological niche in teh underdark by exposing ore and gems and shit.
Quaggoth: Another psionic monster in the non-psionic 5e. Another Drow Slave Race and Underdark Only Monster, because this edition is teh Underdark Edition...
Raksasha: yet another anomaly from the early days of D&D, a demon/devil monster that defies conventional classification in the legendarium of D&D because its lingering like a bad stench...
Remorhaz: YOu know, I think all the crawly worm-bug monsters with elemental powers could be rounded up and turned into a single monster with themes? No? Fine, keep this redudant ice worm thing then. See if I care.
Revenant: Another incredibly niche monster (undead this time), that somehow made it into the only Monster Manual we are going to get. These are the noble-not quite friendly undead that only want to kill the bad guys, like an undead batman, so... I mean, you can use them as villians and all but surely there are otehr, better undead for that? RIght? ALSO immune to Turning, because fuck internal logic in favor of narrative amirite?
Roc: Ah.. the classic entry of a monster you don't so much fight as experience. I'd say 'never change, D&D' but then I'd be lying.
Roper: I am always offended by critters that ignore the law of conservation of mass. Cutting off roper tentacles does not affect the roper because the tentacles are a special effect and not a part of its biology, and that make me HULK SMASH!!!!!
Rust Monster: And we have the return of the 'classic fuck the low level fighter needlessly' critter. Sometime around 3e this sucker was a living joke monster that no sensible designer, writer or DM would ever actually use as a threat, but 5e are smart, yo, so here it is complete with the ugliest artistic take its ever had, which makes me sad, since it was always rather cute in previous editions.
Sahugin: A compilation of every repeated complaint we've had so far. Also the art sucks.
Salamanders: yet another Elemental race... also, this constant refrain about efreeti slaving makes me wonder if I missed a subtle dig at white guilt? I mean aside from Grazz't themed monsters, the second most popular thread in this book is a deep discorce into the social structure and moral failings of Efreeti society. Apparently the TRU CALLING for Adventure is to end slavery in the Elemental Plane of Fire. Who knew?
Satyrs: Mythologies favorite rapists, now in your corporate, family friendly D&D, Citizen. Also plagued by being essentially not particularly monsterous (Chaotic Neutral), and of course an intelligent race, with all that implies in 5e.
Scarecrow: Was this written around Hallowween or something? Ooohh... its a construct but its also an intelligent monst.... fuck you. Its a spirit with a body, not a goddamn construct. YOu know, D&D actually tries to make rules and catagories for things, it really does... but its never been particularly good at it, and 5e fails harder than most.
Shadow: So... its a ghost, but its not a ghost. And so its written differently. But its totally a ghost.
Shambling Mound: Honestly I feel like this belonged with the Blights earlier, but no, they had to do their weird thing about the Tree of Gregory or whatever, so here is the poor shambling mound, off on its lonesome, with no friends and no one to love it. Also, they've largely been relegate to monster-pets and walking garbage disposals by generations of module writers, which kinda robs them of their monsterous magesty.
Shield Guardian: yet another Construct. C'mon, its really just a fancy fucking golem, innit? Why can't D&D acknowledge that simple fact and, you know, stick it with the fucking golems already?
Skeleton: Its boring. Its a bone golem but its treated like its not. Its mindless but somehow wicked. Sure. whatever helps you sleep at night, bub.
Skeleton Minotaur: And THIS... THIS RIGHT HERE... is why the old template model fuckign worked. But no. 5e can't have nice things. You don't get flexible tools to create neat things on your own, you get spoon fed what we want to make, citizen.
Slaadi: Another Fiend Folio critter elevated to Core. Also a perfect example of how the cosmology of D&D changed and evolved, but the writers are too chickenshit to change the monsters to fit. Also wolverine rip-offs.
Specter: How many ghosts are we up to now? Four? Five?
Sphinx: Look at dem alignments. Are these monsters or plot devices. You tell me.
Sprite: Somehow... Somewhy... these chaotic beings of the Feywild are perfect judges of moral character. That is... as completely fucking retarded as pacifist pixies. What, was this monster manual written by a preteen girl?
Stirge: Uglies artwork yet. I mean, I guess its supposed to be ugly, but DAMN. Never mind that this thing is very clearly a 'monster pest'. As in, its just a pest creature made a bit more monsterous. Even low level characters aren't really threatened by them, at the end of the day, except in very large numbers. Complete waste of the rules, really. This should be some sort of swarm, but I guess we sort of did away with generic swarm rules, along with all the other useful templates...
Succubus/Incubus: Honestly, they should just go with the single popular name (succubus), given everything. And they should be devils (were they devils before? No... they were demons, which was totally inappropriate for the cosmology...), but instead they chickened out and made them 'random fiend things'. Also this is the Corporate and Family Friendly D&D, Citizen....
Tarrasque: Why? Just... Why?
Thri-Kreen: Why are there so many intelligent races that are not really monsters at all in htis damn book?
Treant: Monsters I will never use for 500, Alex. Good. Plot Devices. Also a boring legacy rip off from Tolkeen, given a stupid name change for legal reasons back in the day. BUt, I guess if you are running an 'evil nature despoilers campaign' you can fight them. Or, if you manage to contort, distort, fold mangle and mutilate 5e enough to run armies and seige campaigns with it, you can totally have them in your army, since they ahve seige rules.
Troglodytes: A much more interestingly named, but somehow more boringly presented, lizardfolk. Also: Intelligent Monster Race rant here.
Trolls: The classic D&D mong. Also a classic example of how to horribly misunderstand action economies and translating them into new rule-sets...
Umber Hulk: Remember when I said Hulk Smash earlier? This is the Hulk I was referring to. What? I don't want Disney to sue me.
Unicorn: A perfect storm of complaints. Its a good aligned plot device critter that will often show up as a pet, and thus should have been appendixed with the BLink Dogs and the Griffons. Also gets a massive write up, sucking up space better used elsewhere.
Vampires: Four. Fucking.Pages. Count Strahd. Four. Pages. [Editor's Note: This time the author has, in fact, counted the pages, as the earlier boozing has worn off. Carry on...] Yet, somehow, they still have a monster of the week effect. Also, not immune to turning. No, that awesome power is restricted to animated hands and undead batman.
Water Weird: Most forgettable monster ever. Oooohhhh... attack water. Get a dog.
Wight: Stick in standard rant regarding universal templates, stir until mixed.
will o the wisp: Has anyone, in the history of D&D, ever actually used these as monsters? Plot devices? Sure. But Monsters? Not Fucking Likely. No, your story about that one campaign doesn't count.
Wraith: Oh, look. Another Ghost.
Wyvern: Discount Dragons. Also reduced to mounts. Stick them next to the Griffons.
Xorn: Another writer favorite for some idiot reason. They only exist so asshole GMs have an excuse to take treasure from the party for no return.
Yeti: two pages for a random niche monster with no real impact on campaigns other than 'kill it so we can get to the next encounter'? that seems... odd.
Yaun-ti: So much wasted potential, given so many pages in order to waste all that potential. You know the drill about Intelligent Race Monsters, right? Well, Yaun-Ti take that and crank it to elven, since they not only have potentially levels and classes, but due to their mutations and levels of evolution within their own race, this is the perfect opportunity for a modular system of 'build a boss', but no. Take the premade cookie cutter villians and like 'em. Because that's what you get.
Yugoloths: Said it all before.
Zombies: Said it all before.
The above list is in fun and is not a meaningful criticism of the monsters in the book or the design of 5e, which is of course perfect and flawless and perfect, and no one would ever say a bad word about it ever. Any attempt to read deep and real and heartfelt complaints about the design decisions of 5e found in the above commentary is entirely in your own delusional head, citizen. If seen, report to your nearest Hasbro facility for mental correction.
Have a nice day.
I like how Yuan-ti are cranked up to Elven. :p
Seriously though, nice post Spike!
Mind Devourer: One Hit kill monsters on a save nobody will bother to buff because it only comes up 1/100 times. How traditional.
Quote from: Shasarak;1116616I like how Yuan-ti are cranked up to Elven. :p
Seriously though, nice post Spike!
Thanks! It was fun, if a bit of a challenge keeping it up. I actually made a typo with the Elven thing, but I liked it, so I kept it. Shhh... don' t tell anyone
I find myself agreeing with this post more than disagreeing.
Quote from: Spike;11166135e really is the 'for dummies' edition, innit?
Nah, it's the whiner's edition. It's very much the "tyranny of fun" thinking in action. For some, like Mimics and Cloakers I can only say, it's D&D what do you expect. Over all though, the proliferation of monster races that don't function as scalable templates is a big issue. The need for the big stat blocks is annoying as well. I have been running a pixie named Gazoo as an asshole magical patron in a recent D&D game. Sadly none of the players are old enough to get it.
QuoteAarakocra: Could that name BE any harder to spell? Seriously: Its bird men. One of several examples of Bird Men in D&D. Bird men are inherently boring and stupid. Also, these guys are 'default good guys' which I feel is a gross misuse of alignment and monsters in game.
I have wondered why anyone would see bird men as 'default good guys'. Bird men shed feathers, they smell, they carry lice, they carry avian flu and other diseases. Nasty things to be around. 'Default bad guys' in my book.
You realize that the very nature of the thread meant I had to find SOMETHING negative to say about every single critter, no matter how much I liked or didn't like the write up, right? My complaints about the Cloaker's write up are legitimate, (seriously: how is a Large Creature supposed to pretend to be a 'cloak', and why is a 'cloak monster' depicted as a scary flying skull manta thing, instead of... well, a cloak that looks evil and ready to eat you?), while the comment about the mimic is... mostly... in fun. Weird shit like Mimics are part of the charm, even if I find them somewhat personally irritating, of D&D.
I try to be an honest critic, so I avoid slandering the monsters, but I also wanted to keep in humerous and light in tone. Also a 'serious' critique of every single monster, with detailed and fair analysis of fluff and rules would have taken all week, if not longer, to get through... I do love me some walls of text (er... writing them only...), but even I thought that would be a bit much. :D
Quote from: ElBorak;1116640I have wondered why anyone would see bird men as 'default good guys'. Bird men shed feathers, they smell, they carry lice, they carry avian flu and other diseases. Nasty things to be around. 'Default bad guys' in my book.
I like the cut of your jib!
Thanks!
QuoteBeholders: If I've got this right, Beholders went from being a standard run of the mill 'high level monster' to being some sort of god-things. I'd guess a lot of this comes from supplimentary write ups in previous editions, but now its all right there, taking up what looks like a fucking mini-chapter of the book. Aight, if you love you some flying eye monsters, but honestly I prefer my beholders to be on the margins of D&D, not front and fucking center. Also, I find beholders to be inherently self contradictory... D&D can't decide if they are supposed to be antisocial paranoid Objectivist Hero solo monsters, or highly social autocratic god-king monsters.
I'm not even sure what all of that means. Beholders are bad guys with nasty tempers, bad breath and hair trigger reflexes. They are also blood thirsty psychopaths. Literally blood thirsty, as they eat their victims. Rumor has it that the simultaneous casting of a sleep spell for each eye stalk would leave you with only the main eye to face, but no one is known to have risked trying it.
Quote from: ElBorak;1116649Thanks!
I'm not even sure what all of that means. Beholders are bad guys with nasty tempers, bad breath and hair trigger reflexes. They are also blood thirsty psychopaths. Literally blood thirsty, as they eat their victims. Rumor has it that the simultaneous casting of a sleep spell for each eye stalk would leave you with only the main eye to face, but no one is known to have risked trying it.
That is easy: The first bullet point in Beholders is all about how xenophobic they are. True, my complaint involves the expanded info from the other books, but its present here. The second bullet point literally hand-waves away the first but declaring that some beholders (Eye Tyrants) channel their xenophobia into setting themselves up as god-kings. Also expanded in the 'other book' (seriously: Names like Volo's guide to monsters, and Mordenkainens tome of foes are NOT HELPFUL in telling me which book holds which information... sigh...).
I just decided to get fancy pants with the language and descriptions for humor.
One of my favorite D&D-native monsters has always been the Mind Flayer / Illithid. I always thought the way they reproduced and fed was cool and that their society is interesting, plus they look neat. I definitely think they need to focus on the psionics side though and not spellcasting, it comes across as wishy-washy.
Anyway, in the spirit of the thread, IMO pretty much all of the humanoid variants in D&D are lame as fuck. "A dwarf, BUT he lives even DEEPER underground and he's evil! A dwarf, BUT his hair and beard are actually flames! An elf, BUT they live in tunnels and like spiders and shit and listen to Nine Inch Nails! A lizard dude, but like, snakey and shit! Another lizard dude but, like, a frog and shit! Another frog dude but these are all good frog dudes not bad frog dudes! Great idea, another elf but he, like, lives in the woods and shit! This other one has like webbed toes and shit!" Fuck! :mad:
I've been bitching about the wtiting, if you can call it that sometimes, in the 5e MM from the get-go.
Lets see there.
Aarakocra: I'll get this one out of the way right off, but applies to your recurring complaint. Alignment listed is a GUIDELINE and is NOT set in stone. Evil birdies? They is out there.
Aboleth: This is one of a recurring trend in 5e to make certain monsters weirdly more powerful than they were before. But only in the text. Not the actual stats. These, Hags, and a few others that in the text are elevated to demigods or more. 5e Aboleth also feel oddly weaker than their 2e counterparts.
Animated objects: Think the entry is there for then you make them with spells. But the text does not quite mesh.
Ankheg: Oh this is one of my biggest bitches with 5es text vs stats. They spend alot of time saying practically nothing in oh so many entries.
Banshee: You missed the elf part. Yep. Freaking out elf ghosts.
Beholder: See my commentary on 5es weird secondary obsession with making various monsters now demigods or close enough. These and the Kua-Toa...
Bullette: Pretty sure they have been Bullettes since the start. Dont like the new look for them though.
Chimera: If I recall right the flattery part is taken from mythology. Which is pathetic when you see how often they just chuck any classical origins out the window.
Cyclops: Beings made by gods that dont believe in gods. Made of fail.
Darkmantle: These went from a nod to the the sci-fo movie Not of this Earth, to man sized flying octopus things. That are intelligent???
Deathknight. Poor poor death knight.
Demilich: The final fate of Acererak and apparently all lichkind. Which contradicts practically immortal lich lords all over the darn place.
Demons: and this is my main irk with the 5e MM and ot carries over into the other monster books. Demons/devils freaking in everything. They get a big entry here and more and more in later books. On top of that now a chunk of classic monsters are demon spawn or demon created or demon cursed, or demon looked at me funny. 5e is demon-happy. Really. They pop up in about every other module and if they dont, then they are cluttering up the next MM book.
Dinosaurs: Dinos and ice age mammals have been a staple of fantasy literature for ages. And they have been in D&D since at least Isle of Dread. Probably earlier.
Gorgon: Oh this one I get to apply some school learning from! Actually there IS a bull monster called a gorgon. If I recall right it is from a 1600 book on fantastical beasts. The Gorgon was a bull-like thing with scales (metal?) and it breathed poison gas. The book also called them.... Catoblepontas. Apparently a local university has the text. I'll try and look that up.
Hellhound: Except Cinders is not evil. Just a pyromaniac pup. :cool:
Homuculus: No no no! They came first so Porgs are Homunculus cute! er... wait...
Kobold: The original D&D kobold was just a wimpier version of a goblin. Eventually they evolved into their own thing.
Mephits and then Magmen, er, Magmin: Someone at TSR was obsessed with these damn things as they inserted them everywhere in 2e. Magmen were the new mephit in 3e apparently. They even pop up in the second movie.
Nightmare: You missed the part where nightmares are actually... Demon corrupted pegasus. Because we cant have enough demon touched stuff in D&D now.
Nothic: Ah the Nothic. Someones great big Fuck you Wizards magnum opus love letter to Vecna.
Piercer: Did the artist even read what they were supposed to draw?
Rust Monster: Godds what have they done to the poor rust monster art? Second worst depiction of a monster.
Skeleton. The text contradicts the stats and the text even contradicts itself.
Stirge: You missed the part whwre these things are considered... Beasts... you know... mostly natural animals. But the pegasus isnt. Because!
Tarasque: Because how else are you going to stomp Kara-Tur?
Troglodyte: Why does the Lizard man art look like it is missplaced trog art and why does the trog art look like it is misplaced slaad art?
Water Weird: Wait till you meet the... wine weird! No. I am not making this up.
Theres even more nonsense in the other two monster books.
Gosh, how about more specific hate for5e Mummies? They're CR3, brutal since at that level not every party will have that much in the way of magic firepower (granted, they're vulnerable to fire, but a party without it is in major trouble). Toss in that gaze attack which can lead to auto-hit crit killing a character quite easily.
Overall, though my issue with the monsters is they didn't evolve like the characters did. The 5e hobgoblin is not that much different than the 1e hobgoblin in terms of abilities. Meanwhile, 5e fighters have action surge, mages can cast many spells as well as safely cast in melee, rogues can bounce in and out of a fight with ease. Bottom line, monsters didn't gain abilities nearly as good or in as much quantity as characters.
At the risk of another cry-fest, I'll mention I gave pretty much all non-spellcasting monsters (and characters) Mage Slayer to offset things a little, but monsters at low/mid levels are still pretty pathetic.
Quote from: Omega;1116722Gorgon: Oh this one I get to apply some school learning from! Actually there IS a bull monster called a gorgon. If I recall right it is from a 1600 book on fantastical beasts. The Gorgon was a bull-like thing with scales (metal?) and it breathed poison gas. The book also called them.... Catoblepontas. Apparently a local university has the text. I'll try and look that up.
Topsell's "The History of Four-Footed Beasts" You can find digitized copies online.