Thanks for doing this! I really like the boosts to damage, adding hit points instead of worrying about (or forgetting) common damage resistance damage, the addition of vulnerabilities, and the inclusion of gear on the NPCs. All of this makes for a better time and saves me work as a DM. :)
My pleasure! I’m glad the changes are gonna be up your alley! It’s nice to know WotC is getting some stuff right to improve the game experience! We jump on the bad stuff so readily, it’s nice to talk about the good now and again. :)
It would be more complicated, but vulnerability being double damage has made me nervous to homebrew into existing monsters. I would probably be more okay with either "the monster takes extra damage equal to half the damage dealt" or if you are okay with more granularity "the monster takes 1 extra damage for every 5 dealt"
I have very little proof, but I am curious because of something I spotted in the official DnD module on Foundry if they might not be adding “+dx” damage when hit by a specific damage type. Vulnerability is a super potent weakness for sure, but it makes for some excited players so I get mixed minds about it. Excitement is good after all!!
The real treasure is the trauma we gain along the way, right? ;) I agree tho, treasure in monster entries is a nice quality of life thing to make things easier for the DM to add it in.
There are obviously weapons like Flametongue but can you get a +1 longsword of force? Or do you have to rely on spells and class features to give your weapons damage types outside BPS?
Some, but not a lot. The lowest rarity example I found in the DMG is a javelin of lightning. I believe that’s why physical resistance will feature comparatively infrequently compared to the 2014 monster manual.
I like the use of the term physical resistance to indicate resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. But as someone with all the monster cards (which I frequently use), I'm disinclined to switch to a new MM, especially since I already tweak monsters.
I can definitely understand holding off on changes when you have a product helping out at the table! There might be a rule of thumb that can be gleaned from the new book so you can adjust these ad hoc at the table, but I think we need more examples to go off before that becomes clear.
Man I'm so excited to see the MM when it comes out! Thanks for what could be "sneak peak" for what's to come. The analysis was well written and thought out. 😊
I really wish we would have seen some monsters during play test. It was hard to gauge changes without the new version of bad guys available. Giving us the game 5 months before the monsters seems pretty ridiculous to me.
I would have loved access to the new monsters way before this, too. That said, I’m sure there were constraints and business reasons and sometimes we just have to make do because of those, ya know? Kinda sucks that that’s how it is, but 5e’s first release was no different. It’s a weakness of the traditional publishing system.
Exactly, ideally for DM’s the MM should have released at the same time as the PHB. People say there are reasons why it couldn’t. Whether those reasons are real or not, it would have still been better for DMs to have them at the same time.
@ definitely would have been better for the DMs and players. Probably not for the company, which I suspect is the biggest reason it won’t happen in a traditionally published product.
I think the change from resistance to nonmagical weapons to the damage type itself was because DMs felt they were disincentivized from using tougher creatures against parties without magic items. Afterall, it might seem unfair from either the DM or player side to throw a werewolf at a low level party when it can dish out damage, run fast enough to prevent them from running away, AND couldn't take damage except from the caster(s), knowing full well this type of creature's weakness to silver. Especially out in the forest, far away from civilization.
DnD is best when it ISNT fair. This is supposed to be about epic adventures to unknown locations and dangerous situations. And luck is a part of that...and running into an enemy when you are not perfectly equipped to fight it....THAT is golden. Dont be afraid to be harsh....much more fun that way....lol. This is why older gamers see new ones as soft. Things come up...get creative. Also, teaches people to really put effort in their inventory, and research.
@shadowmancer99 Preaching to the chior, my boy. I don't balance encounters. My players win, run, or die. However, I'm speaking from a game design philosophy point of view. Not everyone is interested in running tactical life and death combat. Not everyone plays the way we do, and that's fine. They shouldn't be disincentivized from using certain creatures because of that. They should feel free to not use something on a statblock they don't want to use.
But i have to say.. Being DMing 5e since launch, and 3.5 before it. And i still believe a mix of DR and Resistance, specially if they are different, give enemies, specially Elites/Boss enemies a more dynamic fight where players may choose lesser damaging spells, in order to make sure that they deal a good damage. I also homebrewed Resistance and Vulnerabilities to Conditions, and certain conditions players can inflict, through spells or features, end up making again, players think more of what to do. DO the monk keep spending Ki Points against something with advantage against Stuns, or they start trying to seek enemies weakness. On this i also changed how i plan my adventures, always trying to leave hints for the players to discover some of the enemies characteristics beforehand.
@@DM-Timothy Oh, if yah wanna, later i can take some monsters i adjusted for an old campaing, send to yah! There's any email or bluesky or twitter account i could do it? Sometimes i even write flavor texts for me, to remind me why of the mechanics, because, one hobbie of mine is just creating concepts of enemies and write parts of the npc statblock until i find a place to use them
Why do they give the crappiest spell to monsters, spells you would never pick for combat. My cult fanatics have both guiding bolt and inflict wounds. I use the cleric spells I would pick for my cleric. Just tell you whos spells they have access too and give you a number of slots. Not a bunch of useless spells.
I think it’s mostly a matter of balancing things out to keep CR in line, and picking things that hit the themes they’re looking for. Maybe that’s me being super optimistic and generous? I dunno. But I feel like if monsters had the best spells all the time they would need CR adjustments in some cases.
Looking sharp my friend! This is a good look for you. And having the cat on your lap is great DM presence. Having studied these changes do you think you understand the underlying theory of why they are the way they are? In other words, have you reversed engineered the monster creation formula? Do you think the equation of (PC) x (Number of PCs) = CR(X) has been balanced?
Thanks much! I’m afraid I’m not much of a statistician, so I can only offer my feeling based on the numbers in answer to your question. I am confident that WotC has worked on that math and is trying to balance it out as much as possible. I am equally confident that it is a fight they’re likely gonna lose. 5e is not designed with the kind of constraints that will allow a CR system to predict accurately every time. I think we will be seeing changes that move us closer to the ideal, but there will always be a certain inaccuracy to it all… I’m sure someone will disagree! :D
Totally could have done so, it's true. But beasts have always been relatively light on rule set, and though there were some awesome changes made there, this set of options captured my attention and interest more than the adjustments in the PHB did.
Even after your video (great, that goes without saying), I still feel like WotC gives all pre-established monsters and little room to creativity. I understand they're a business and they want us to buy their manuals and supplements and enter into the setting, but I feel it could give some more levers for players to use them.
That’s a totally fair stance. I’d love to see more exploitable bits and pieces in our monsters, too! I’m loving the vulnerability on fire elementals, and how simple such changes like that can be to improve our experience. Hopefully the fact this is a small sampling means we still have room for pleasant surprises! :D
I really hope they reverse course on the damage upgrades to NPC's using weapons that PC's can use. The Knight's Heavy Crossbow inexplicably dealing 2x the damage Heavy Crossbow in the PC's hand is bothersome; it's going to result in people asking why the ultra dangerous crossbow they picked up from the body of the Knight doesn't work nearly as well in their own hands, and there's no real explanation for why.
That’s fair. In the past, creatures were given traits to represent this. But that IS just bloat on the statblock that can be explained away by the DM.The answer i would typically give is “specialized training” in the case of the knight.
@@DM-Timothy A simple explanation from time to time, but if that's a book-wide design choice, I think it runs the risk of wearing thin. I do recognize that some of my thinking on this is flawed -- I don't feel the need to account for the radiant damage that the knight gets.
It’s an interesting change for sure. An older example is the “brute” ability on the Gladiator. It does essentially the same thing as the heavy crossbow change, but it didnt draw the same attention from the community.
The same reason the NPCs will never have the Great Weapon Master feat. PCs and monsters have been asymmetrical since the start of 5e, it's just that originally 5e spent far too much page space justifying this mechanically.
The changes are great! They hit that line you mentioned with complexity to give "life" to monsters and not making it overly complicated. I personally never liked magic weapon so I am glad they removed it.
@DM-Timothy Of all the creaturs se have seen so far that lost their nonmagical BPS resistance (Imp, Quasit, Succubi/Incubi, Stone Golem, Fire Elemental) only one of them have had BPS resistance. From what it seems, they're reserving BPS resistance for incorporeal creatures, which I somewhat like.
Do you use "NPC" oddly. You kept calling every humanoid opponent an NPC. To me an NPC is someone interacted with socially, not just a humanoid in the monster manual.
Technically all creatures controlled by the DM are in my eyes NPCs. I usually call ones you fight monsters, but for whatever reason I find it harder to do that for humanoids. Just feels weird (even tho the PHB specifically classifies every enemy you might fight as a monster)
Everything you are saying is confirming that basically the 5e monsters will continue to suck ass. I disagree with the monster design being dumb ass simple and gettng rid of physical resistance, not making major increases in HP, AC, and abilities, taking away spells from caster ncp monsters, not providing interesting mechanics for monsters, or deadl ones. Yea, this is why I go back and use 3.5 versions of the monsters will some minor tweaks, 5e are nothing but boring. Design FAIL.
Totally fair stance. We disagree on what dumb simple is, but hey, customizing monsters from old editions and other sources is a classic part of D&D, so more power to you. :)
@@DM-Timothy I mean I get that there is a market for simple mechanics, rules, monsters to some extent. Clearly 2e and even 3.5 e was a bit heavier than most average players today could or would handle. BUT that doesnt mean they needed to turn the dial on the threat level to 1. They removed energy drain for instance....such a nasty thing and totally useful in bringing the terror....and from what I am seeing they just maybe increased the HP a bit, but the defenses are just crap...like they want to make sure that no player can ever possibly miss/fail. I realize some might like it that way, but why bother at this pt with mechanics if the players cant miss....? I just think the devs lied their asses off when the said they went through and actually looked at EVERY monster and did anything interesting to them...seems to me, they REMOVED all the interesting bits. Well, at least 5e is consistent...nerf all around.
@ I dunno, I’ll withhold full judgment till the book comes out, as this smattering only shows the low CR end for the most part, but it seems to me like a surprising number of these low cr guys got a dps boost, and low level 5e is easily the scariest part of 5e already. They’re keeping the mechanics simple, but most of the offerings have SOMETHING more than just hp and dps, which is my biggest “no no” for monsters. (Sorry Ogre, you fail in this design department)
@@DM-Timothy Its fair to withhold judgement, but I think the trend is concerning. Of course, I think we might be coming at this from different style preferences too, which is fine enough. I just want my DnD to be more terrifying and deadly rather than cute and fuzzy. The 5e monsters are pretty much pussy cats compared to their 3.5 ancestors...lol.
@@shadowmancer99 We can both agree on THAT goal at least. I want my monsters to land as close to the CR as possible for terror. Then I can terrorize with the difference in CR, instead of with swingy or overcomplicated design.
very happy to see the succubus and incubus be made formidable. It only took 50 years. 😂
If at first you don’t succeed… wait until the next edition to try again.
Thanks for doing this! I really like the boosts to damage, adding hit points instead of worrying about (or forgetting) common damage resistance damage, the addition of vulnerabilities, and the inclusion of gear on the NPCs. All of this makes for a better time and saves me work as a DM. :)
My pleasure! I’m glad the changes are gonna be up your alley! It’s nice to know WotC is getting some stuff right to improve the game experience! We jump on the bad stuff so readily, it’s nice to talk about the good now and again. :)
It would be more complicated, but vulnerability being double damage has made me nervous to homebrew into existing monsters. I would probably be more okay with either "the monster takes extra damage equal to half the damage dealt" or if you are okay with more granularity "the monster takes 1 extra damage for every 5 dealt"
I have very little proof, but I am curious because of something I spotted in the official DnD module on Foundry if they might not be adding “+dx” damage when hit by a specific damage type. Vulnerability is a super potent weakness for sure, but it makes for some excited players so I get mixed minds about it. Excitement is good after all!!
I miss monsters having treasure in their statblock. I was surprised when my character killed a dragon and there was no treasure.
The real treasure is the trauma we gain along the way, right? ;) I agree tho, treasure in monster entries is a nice quality of life thing to make things easier for the DM to add it in.
There are obviously weapons like Flametongue but can you get a +1 longsword of force? Or do you have to rely on spells and class features to give your weapons damage types outside BPS?
Some, but not a lot. The lowest rarity example I found in the DMG is a javelin of lightning.
I believe that’s why physical resistance will feature comparatively infrequently compared to the 2014 monster manual.
@DM-Timothy This is where a feature like Hunter's Mark could shine. Not for the extra damage but for the radiant damage.
I like the use of the term physical resistance to indicate resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. But as someone with all the monster cards (which I frequently use), I'm disinclined to switch to a new MM, especially since I already tweak monsters.
I can definitely understand holding off on changes when you have a product helping out at the table! There might be a rule of thumb that can be gleaned from the new book so you can adjust these ad hoc at the table, but I think we need more examples to go off before that becomes clear.
Man I'm so excited to see the MM when it comes out! Thanks for what could be "sneak peak" for what's to come. The analysis was well written and thought out. 😊
Thanks so much for watching! I am counting down the days too!!!!
I really wish we would have seen some monsters during play test. It was hard to gauge changes without the new version of bad guys available. Giving us the game 5 months before the monsters seems pretty ridiculous to me.
I would have loved access to the new monsters way before this, too. That said, I’m sure there were constraints and business reasons and sometimes we just have to make do because of those, ya know? Kinda sucks that that’s how it is, but 5e’s first release was no different. It’s a weakness of the traditional publishing system.
Exactly, ideally for DM’s the MM should have released at the same time as the PHB. People say there are reasons why it couldn’t. Whether those reasons are real or not, it would have still been better for DMs to have them at the same time.
@ definitely would have been better for the DMs and players. Probably not for the company, which I suspect is the biggest reason it won’t happen in a traditionally published product.
so far so good, i like the changes!
Glad to hear it! It's been a long time coming!
I think the change from resistance to nonmagical weapons to the damage type itself was because DMs felt they were disincentivized from using tougher creatures against parties without magic items. Afterall, it might seem unfair from either the DM or player side to throw a werewolf at a low level party when it can dish out damage, run fast enough to prevent them from running away, AND couldn't take damage except from the caster(s), knowing full well this type of creature's weakness to silver. Especially out in the forest, far away from civilization.
Totally fair. I’m VERY curious what they will do with weres. Will they get a special resistance? Regeneration? Or a vulnerability and a bucket of HP?
@DM-Timothy It's possible, but not likely, that Lycanthropes will keep the silver caveat. Personally, I expect them to get regeneration, at least.
@ It’s going on the short list of things I’ll check as soon as the book is available for sure!
DnD is best when it ISNT fair. This is supposed to be about epic adventures to unknown locations and dangerous situations. And luck is a part of that...and running into an enemy when you are not perfectly equipped to fight it....THAT is golden. Dont be afraid to be harsh....much more fun that way....lol. This is why older gamers see new ones as soft. Things come up...get creative. Also, teaches people to really put effort in their inventory, and research.
@shadowmancer99 Preaching to the chior, my boy. I don't balance encounters. My players win, run, or die. However, I'm speaking from a game design philosophy point of view. Not everyone is interested in running tactical life and death combat. Not everyone plays the way we do, and that's fine. They shouldn't be disincentivized from using certain creatures because of that. They should feel free to not use something on a statblock they don't want to use.
You forgot cult fanatic became cleric with spiritual weapon which replaced its second attack
It’s true I didn’t mention this. Cult fanatic actually already had that in the 2014 version, they just kept it, rather than added it. :)
I like the new stat blocks.
Me too, so far. I'm not too keen on the formatting of the ability scores, but I'll get used to it.
But i have to say.. Being DMing 5e since launch, and 3.5 before it.
And i still believe a mix of DR and Resistance, specially if they are different, give enemies, specially Elites/Boss enemies a more dynamic fight where players may choose lesser damaging spells, in order to make sure that they deal a good damage.
I also homebrewed Resistance and Vulnerabilities to Conditions, and certain conditions players can inflict, through spells or features, end up making again, players think more of what to do.
DO the monk keep spending Ki Points against something with advantage against Stuns, or they start trying to seek enemies weakness.
On this i also changed how i plan my adventures, always trying to leave hints for the players to discover some of the enemies characteristics beforehand.
I’d love to hear what you’ve done in more detail. It sounds neat for sure!
@@DM-Timothy Oh, if yah wanna, later i can take some monsters i adjusted for an old campaing, send to yah!
There's any email or bluesky or twitter account i could do it?
Sometimes i even write flavor texts for me, to remind me why of the mechanics, because, one hobbie of mine is just creating concepts of enemies and write parts of the npc statblock until i find a place to use them
@ you can email them to timothy@dmtimothy.com :) Thanks!
Why do they give the crappiest spell to monsters, spells you would never pick for combat. My cult fanatics have both guiding bolt and inflict wounds. I use the cleric spells I would pick for my cleric. Just tell you whos spells they have access too and give you a number of slots. Not a bunch of useless spells.
The DMG isn't in charge of what the monsters can do, that is the DM's decision.
I think it’s mostly a matter of balancing things out to keep CR in line, and picking things that hit the themes they’re looking for. Maybe that’s me being super optimistic and generous? I dunno. But I feel like if monsters had the best spells all the time they would need CR adjustments in some cases.
Ostensibly, the monsters or cultists weren't planning to fight a group of nurderhobos today, either. ;)
@@DM-TimothyFacts. they need to lower the CR for a lich, for example, by 4 or 5, just based on its crappy spell list. 😊
@@captaindred342 no argument here. Instead, however, I suspect the Lich will get a huge glow up in the upcoming book… it’s gonna be interesting.
Looking sharp my friend! This is a good look for you. And having the cat on your lap is great DM presence.
Having studied these changes do you think you understand the underlying theory of why they are the way they are? In other words, have you reversed engineered the monster creation formula?
Do you think the equation of (PC) x (Number of PCs) = CR(X) has been balanced?
Thanks much! I’m afraid I’m not much of a statistician, so I can only offer my feeling based on the numbers in answer to your question. I am confident that WotC has worked on that math and is trying to balance it out as much as possible. I am equally confident that it is a fight they’re likely gonna lose. 5e is not designed with the kind of constraints that will allow a CR system to predict accurately every time. I think we will be seeing changes that move us closer to the ideal, but there will always be a certain inaccuracy to it all… I’m sure someone will disagree! :D
Wouldn’t you compare the creatures in the new players handbook to their 5e versions? Or am i missing something(sincere question here)
Totally could have done so, it's true. But beasts have always been relatively light on rule set, and though there were some awesome changes made there, this set of options captured my attention and interest more than the adjustments in the PHB did.
Even after your video (great, that goes without saying), I still feel like WotC gives all pre-established monsters and little room to creativity. I understand they're a business and they want us to buy their manuals and supplements and enter into the setting, but I feel it could give some more levers for players to use them.
That’s a totally fair stance. I’d love to see more exploitable bits and pieces in our monsters, too! I’m loving the vulnerability on fire elementals, and how simple such changes like that can be to improve our experience. Hopefully the fact this is a small sampling means we still have room for pleasant surprises! :D
I really hope they reverse course on the damage upgrades to NPC's using weapons that PC's can use. The Knight's Heavy Crossbow inexplicably dealing 2x the damage Heavy Crossbow in the PC's hand is bothersome; it's going to result in people asking why the ultra dangerous crossbow they picked up from the body of the Knight doesn't work nearly as well in their own hands, and there's no real explanation for why.
That’s fair. In the past, creatures were given traits to represent this. But that IS just bloat on the statblock that can be explained away by the DM.The answer i would typically give is “specialized training” in the case of the knight.
@@DM-Timothy A simple explanation from time to time, but if that's a book-wide design choice, I think it runs the risk of wearing thin. I do recognize that some of my thinking on this is flawed -- I don't feel the need to account for the radiant damage that the knight gets.
It’s an interesting change for sure. An older example is the “brute” ability on the Gladiator. It does essentially the same thing as the heavy crossbow change, but it didnt draw the same attention from the community.
The same reason the NPCs will never have the Great Weapon Master feat. PCs and monsters have been asymmetrical since the start of 5e, it's just that originally 5e spent far too much page space justifying this mechanically.
Mealy attacks
lol. Yup. I’ve been saying it wrong for almost 3 decades. Unfortunately hard habit to break for me! :)
are you married to 2 spouses? :D
lol, no indeed. My wife does NOT share! Lol
The changes are great! They hit that line you mentioned with complexity to give "life" to monsters and not making it overly complicated.
I personally never liked magic weapon so I am glad they removed it.
It’s a balancing act for sure! I know magic weapon resistance was much reviled. I hope that new physical resistance won’t get over used, is all!
@DM-Timothy Of all the creaturs se have seen so far that lost their nonmagical BPS resistance (Imp, Quasit, Succubi/Incubi, Stone Golem, Fire Elemental) only one of them have had BPS resistance.
From what it seems, they're reserving BPS resistance for incorporeal creatures, which I somewhat like.
@@The_Crimson_Witch the stone golem got 120 more hp which is basically the same thing.
@@edgeofnothing67 I'm aware. The imp got 11 hp (basically double), ect ect. The difference is it effects casters and martials equallym
@ I never thought about it in that context. Good point.
Do you use "NPC" oddly. You kept calling every humanoid opponent an NPC. To me an NPC is someone interacted with socially, not just a humanoid in the monster manual.
Everything not controlled by the players is an NPC. Monsters, humanoids, animals, sentient plants. They are all NPC’s.
Technically all creatures controlled by the DM are in my eyes NPCs. I usually call ones you fight monsters, but for whatever reason I find it harder to do that for humanoids. Just feels weird (even tho the PHB specifically classifies every enemy you might fight as a monster)
Everything you are saying is confirming that basically the 5e monsters will continue to suck ass. I disagree with the monster design being dumb ass simple and gettng rid of physical resistance, not making major increases in HP, AC, and abilities, taking away spells from caster ncp monsters, not providing interesting mechanics for monsters, or deadl ones. Yea, this is why I go back and use 3.5 versions of the monsters will some minor tweaks, 5e are nothing but boring. Design FAIL.
Totally fair stance. We disagree on what dumb simple is, but hey, customizing monsters from old editions and other sources is a classic part of D&D, so more power to you. :)
@@DM-Timothy I mean I get that there is a market for simple mechanics, rules, monsters to some extent. Clearly 2e and even 3.5 e was a bit heavier than most average players today could or would handle. BUT that doesnt mean they needed to turn the dial on the threat level to 1. They removed energy drain for instance....such a nasty thing and totally useful in bringing the terror....and from what I am seeing they just maybe increased the HP a bit, but the defenses are just crap...like they want to make sure that no player can ever possibly miss/fail. I realize some might like it that way, but why bother at this pt with mechanics if the players cant miss....? I just think the devs lied their asses off when the said they went through and actually looked at EVERY monster and did anything interesting to them...seems to me, they REMOVED all the interesting bits. Well, at least 5e is consistent...nerf all around.
@ I dunno, I’ll withhold full judgment till the book comes out, as this smattering only shows the low CR end for the most part, but it seems to me like a surprising number of these low cr guys got a dps boost, and low level 5e is easily the scariest part of 5e already. They’re keeping the mechanics simple, but most of the offerings have SOMETHING more than just hp and dps, which is my biggest “no no” for monsters. (Sorry Ogre, you fail in this design department)
@@DM-Timothy Its fair to withhold judgement, but I think the trend is concerning. Of course, I think we might be coming at this from different style preferences too, which is fine enough. I just want my DnD to be more terrifying and deadly rather than cute and fuzzy. The 5e monsters are pretty much pussy cats compared to their 3.5 ancestors...lol.
@@shadowmancer99 We can both agree on THAT goal at least. I want my monsters to land as close to the CR as possible for terror. Then I can terrorize with the difference in CR, instead of with swingy or overcomplicated design.