The best thing about the Arch Hag's anathema is that it doesn't need to be a magical item. The DM can give it to the party & see them ditch the "useless necklace" because they found a more shining thing. The Hag herself can trade it for a magic item of protection.
The arch hag sounds like fun. In some campaigns, the stat block could even be used for Baba Yaga. I could also see the new bugbear stat block being used for Krampus.
@@byronentwistle8525 Im deff doing that. My players are about to start a Horror Feywild Story and Bana Yaga is a huge part of the story, and I am for sure buffing the Archhag just for her. I want to give my players a sense of dread when in her pressence
We have a Ranger and a Druid in our party and they’re both heavily connected to the Feywild by backstory. So we’ve had some killer encounters with Dryads and Satyrs and a whole blight of Mushroom Folk. I’ll be leaning heavy into this section of the new book.
From 5:00 to 10:00 is basically a long winded way of saying: yeah; the mechanics separating players and creatures don’t make sense. Ignore it. Which, I get is needed for the game they decided to make. But man, it makes the world-builder verisimilitude lover in me cry.
I get it from a game design standpoint. Especially since much of your party's synergy may only work on humanoids. But if my player wants their Goblin character to be fey, I'll allow it.
@@miles7224 Same. We already have fey species (changeling, fairy satyr, centaur, etc.) so why not let some goblinoids be fey. Same with Dragonborn being dragons.
Caring about verisimilitude in 2025 makes you a toxic gamer. The kind that Kyle Brink wants to get rid of. D&D is about nat20s letting you reshape reality, not anything resembling actually playing a game or sharing a sense of genre realism.
This is really nice. I hope they release a book in the future that depicts more fey creatures in different climates, like mountains, deserts, oceans, cold/snowy climates.
Very clever of you guys to answer general questions about the game throughout these videos. We can watch not just for the monsters, but for important info like what you said about playable species. Good to know there's a logical reason behind some of the differentiations. Still hope minotaur are playable monstrosities, lol. 😆 As for the fey: Loving the new organization, challenges, and the way they always are so expressive. And the way you snuck in that tidbit about someone cursing in the monster manual right after talking about archhags, the masters of curses! 😆
Ok, so idea. A hag and a necromancer fall in love. They work together until the necromancer does the work to become a lich and the hag becomes an arch hag. The phylactery is ALSO the anathema. So the party can't destroy the phylactery until they take down the arch hag and can't take down the arch hag until they find the phylactery.
I'm a little disappointed that a bunch of player species are Humanoid while others have their types changed. I would have loved if some of the players kept their typing, or made them some sort of hybrid (like Elves and gnomes would be Fey Humanoid, Aasimar could be Celestial Humanoid, Tiefling could be Fiend Humanoid, Goliaths could be Giant Humanoid, Dragonborn could be Dragon Humanoid, etc). Perhaps as a mechanic, they can get advantage on attacks that target Humanoids or type-specific effects.
There's some great ideas presented in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight adventure. I think that Korreds, Boggles, Brigganocks, and Changelings are fey. Interesting that Eladrin are humanoid, not fey... but maybe these expanded rules will change that. I'd like Leprechaun stats... they've been in earlier editions of D&D.
Why not give additional creature types to goblin pc's ? feels like locking out their lore from the feywild if they ''stayed long enough in the material plane to lose some fey-ness"
6:36 So uh, yeah? A kobold in the wild is a DRAGON, but a kobold adventurer is a humanoid... Alright, alright. Bit weird, slightly regressive, but It opens up a question I've asked for literal years; Why aren't gnolls playable by this logic, then? They're a fiend, sure. But a gnoll adventurer would be a humanoid, yeah? Soooo, why can't we have that...? But if the reasons we cannot play gnolls the same as they've ever been in the past with official play like adventurer's league due to lore reasons- Then why are we allowed to play as orcs, drow, and goblinoids?
gnolls could be played many years ago in older editions -- would it be hard for someone to make a playable version for 5e (honest question - i dont play 5e)
@@StarFyreXXXMechanically no, races are simple in 5e and there's loads of gnoll homebrews out there. Lore-wise it gets troublesome, since in the 2014 5e Monster Manuals, gnolls are essentially all bloodthirsty cultists of Yeenoghu. And in the new Monster Manuals they're Fiends instead of Humanoids.
I don't think Jeremy is praised enough for the passion for his job and his courage of being the main face of this book that would inevitably make a lot of old nerds angry (as they often do). Thank you for your work, Jeremy. It truly means a lot and will mean for years to come
I'm kind of on the fence with the idea of goblins, gith, etc being different creature types if they are player characters or monsters. I see the sense in it gamewise, but it does add some constraints to narrative background.
For DM convenience, I can understand the decision lumping playable species into humanoids. However, it feels very strange that Goblin remains fey if elves and giths have adapted to the material plane through generations. They could have said it's just solely a mechanical reason. Anyway, our group will keep using their creature type before, no need to restrict them into humanoids.
I'm pretty sure what he said is essentially there are humanoid elves and fey elves, humanoid goblins and fey goblins. Just like the Eladrin in the Mordenkainen books. Some Gith are Aberrations, and some are Humanoid. Now, you have more variations of stat blocks to play with. You can take the Knight stat block and make it a humanoid Gith. Or you can use the Gith'yanki stat block and it's an aberration because it is more magically powerful.
The way I play it is that if an elven bloodline or goblin family has been living in the material plane for a long time they're likely humanoid, if they're from the feywild then they are Fey, because the Faywild charges them with more unpredictable magic.
One last thing, I know that we've had Celestial dwarves and elves and humans in the game for years because there were dwarves and elves and humans that were born in the upper planes such as Arcadia, that were Celestial instead of humanoid.
Hold person was already weak at higher levels bc so few high cr monsters are humanoids. Taking away goblins and others makes hold person kind terrible as a spell choice.
Agreed! I feel that spells like hold person and hold monster shouldn't exist for a long while. It should be just "hold" and depending on the level you're casting, you'd be able to target higher cr creatures. Much simpler, effective and balanced imho
Regarding Humanoid-Only spells: always believed in a Fey-Only, Undead-Only, etc version of most of these spells. It's just the Humanoid-Only version is well known among humanoids.
To be fair, lack of intentionality is one of people's favorite criticisms of WotC. I like when they tell us when an interaction or multiple-book-spanning decision is intentional. It's the sibling of errata. It's good information. Even if it is repetitious.
Is there any reason a player couldn't play a Fey elf from the Feywild? I'm not understanding why in 5E PC options sometimes have to be all Humanoid and sometimes are allowed to be other types (like with satyrs, plasmoids, thri-kreen, warforged, and autognomes).
I'm not trying to be a hater, it's just that the decisions process behind which PC species is a Humanoid versus which another creature type seems arbitrary from both a lore and mechanics standpoint. Why are kobolds dragons, but not dragonborn? Is there a reason DMs should require PC githyanki be humanoids who never lived in the Astral Sea and not allow aberration githyanki who have, and what about being separated from the Astral Sea makes a githyanki no longer an aberration when the reason given for their type is their origins with the mind flayers?
I think it's mainly because with the rules a creature can't have two different types, and a Fey elf species versus a Humanoid elf species is just two different species which is kind of unnecessary. I don't think they're saying that you CAN'T play an elf from the feywild, more than they wouldn't be entirely Fey.
I think I kinda understand what they're saying from a game design standpoint. Unifying the party by being humanoid, especially since some features may only work on humanoids. But if my player wants their Gith to be an Abberation or their Goblin to be Fey, I'll allow it.
It's simple, just tack on two creature types. The DM can treat you as either type for mechanical reasons, and the Player gets to choose which type they are for narrative reasons. It doesn't take a lot of work to make something fit for whatever narrative you are building.
I played a maestro bard satyr that was corrupted to join a cult that uses the arts to corrupt creatures to join. The DM asked me to run a boss battle with him against the party after he became an NPC. The cult was going to use a theatre show to corrupt the entire city. He was practicing for opening night with an entire animated orchestra when the party turned up to defeat him.
I enjoy most of what's being done but you guys seem to talk in circles. "We do things for a reason! Until ... you know ... we don't." At the beginning you talk about anything from the Feywild being Fey, or things with some fey distance. Then you talk about Elves and their Fey ancestry but are like "But not THESE guys." The number of knots I see the creators come up with as to not include elves as Fey is ACTUALLY frustrating. 4th edition didn't get a lot right but lore with Elves and Gnomes were on point. They were just fey, and they SHOULD be. I've been hoping for an official correction but you guys seem to dig your heels into "well game balance says we shouldn't for now" OR "We're deciding your background by deciding your elves aren't from the feywild and haven't been for awhile." I really love every other video and I love the fey in general, which is why this bothers me so much. I'll keep doing my thing but good lord people, stop talking in circles. Still liking the video and buying it all up though. I'll keep homebrewing that part away so its consistent ...
Why was there no build a monster section, like show us the math and stuff to make our own homebrew monsters with 2024 rules. Give us all the traits that appear in the MM, show us how to make an accurate monster to mirror the CR(like a CR 5 monster). Show us how to make low cr monsters into a deadlier cr, and vice versa. This is my only gripe lol.
Theres No space. Thats not a good idea, no monster manual did that so theres no precedent either. There will be a seperate book if anything to show the build rules.
23:35 im so glad you guys are adding more to babayaga she is one of my favorite characters another one I hope you guys add to in this manual would be the pale night I would love a CR30 or higher fight with the creature who is so much more powerful than the demogorgan that she just lets him think he rules knowing full well that if she ever wanted to take the throne of demons she could take it in a thought.
@Fat_Panda_Gamer Nope, I did get a 5 on my Acrobatics check but I am a Human so I used my Heroic Action to reroll and got an 18 on my Acrobatics. My joke is very limber.
Ngl not a fan of the "your gith or fey has lived most of their life on the material plane" justification. It feels like it takes away player agency when crafting a backstory, and making a "I'm just inherently one of the good ones" forced narrative that rarely goes well
Are elves considered fey now? And if elves have been around in the prime material long enough to no longer be considered fey then what about goblins? Their lives are shorter and they've been in the prime material the same amount of time as the elves
Paraphrasing: "The monster could have been on the material plane their entire life but still be Fey, but the players can't do that because they will have been on the material just enough for them to be considered humanoid." such fragile justification
@@keonilewis6482, and the Feywild a lot crowded. There are duendes, red caps, leprechauns and many more pranksters. I realy think this is bad to the lore.
@@juliocmbaia I am a newbie when it comes to DnD lore but correct me if I am (terribly) wrong, but from what I have seen, the lore of the Feywild and its inhabitants is kind of undeveloped compared to other areas of the multiverse, unless I was't looking hard enough.
Okay, gonna scream into the Void again because, What?......These creature type changes and the resjustifications for those change are inconsistent..... just make dual type creatures and species it would solve all of these issues. Are goblins humanoid yes, are goblins fey yes, two things can be true at the same time. say your gith is humanoid because they've lived for so long in the prime material plane when yesterday they said they were abberations because they were inherently twisted into unknowable versions of what they once were. You know what Xanathar is a montrosity now, he's been on the sword coast so long that he's no longer an aberration. That's where this leads just make dual types guys. Please just make dual types a thing and save yourself the issue.
Does this mean that all non-player elves in the Monster Mannual now have the Fey creature type? The lore reason given was that the player character elf is one that has spent the majority of their life on the Prime Material plane so "lost" their "feyness", but the vast majority of elves I've seen in campaigns this is also true? Elves on the PM are one of the most common races and it'd seem weird if they're all fey now despite having elven empires no where near the Feywild.
@@themuzzy2020 Goblins at least still "feel" slightly different, living isolated from humans and other humanoids. If all elves are now fey, one of the most common "humanoid" races is no longer humanoid. It seems like it'd have fairly significant balancing issues of a bunch of spells just not working on a large amount of what are most often treated as "people" and I'm not sure where the difference would be between fey elves and eladrin since eladrin were meant to be the elves that stuck around the feywild more.
@athena-love Around 8:04 they talk about difference between player character creature types and monster stat blocks creature types, 8:54 they mention elves specifically where many elves ancestors were fey but the player elf is humanoid. They're not explicit about other NPC stat block elves being fey but I'm not sure why else they'd have said this.
@ I get that but it doesn't mean you can't play an elf from the feywild. I think sometimes there doesn't need to be a lore reason for everything, and player elves being humanoid is fine.
I'll be honest, I expected to see some other new monsters, not just the arch hag and some monstrosities and humanoids being moved here, especially for lower levels. I hope some good expansion in Glory of The Giants style will be released for this type of creatures
I would like to be able to play a medium size fairy without needing to negotiate with a DM... When the next version of Monster of the Multiverse with changes and new playable races?
Ok pet peeve. I really like to build characters based off of an NPC statblock category. I made a Hobgoblins Eldritch Knight designed to be a student from the School of Devastation to be a Hobgoblin Devastator. Since now the default goblins we encounter are Fey, it feels weird that it seems like Goblin PCs won’t be. Same as Gith being Aberrations in their stat block. If I wanna build a Gish Astral Knight, it’ll be odd if they’re a humanoid while their peers are aberrations.
I love most of these changes in the monster manual but I do think they restrict the incentive of players to take spells like Charm Person. I know they kinda touch on that but many people, especially new players sometimes will pick spells based on effectiveness or what they deem to be a natural logical flow. “It looks like a human and it can talk and is intelligent? Charm Person probably will work on it.” And so while I love the variety, I am a little worried it may skew people to do more combat focused spells than they already do
... in the Expanded rules, there already ARE playable races that are not Humanoid. Plasmoid (Ooze), Satyr (Fey), Hexblood (Fey), & Fairy (Fey). Why are we so deeply stuck on "playable races MUST be Humanoid" ...?
I suppose it's for balance issues since some early spells like Hold Person and Charm Person can be a threat to players, especially the former and ignoring it by just being anything but humanoid can be a bit broken for some DMs (and some of them outright banning them from their campaigns). At higher level it might not matter much since there are variants that can target them but most campaign start at low level and rarely get at high, epic levels. Then again, any DM can just ignore it and keep them are they are instead of making player's characters humanoid.
They say at 10:37 that they are going to be adding more non-humanoid playable species in the future. When they're talking about humanoid goblins and gith they're referring to races from older books that are still playable due to backwards compatibility.
@@GLORPDORP But there's no reason to bend over backwards like that. Just include 2024-rules entries for those updated races for players to use, in the MM.
If goblins are fey, than elves should be too. Just think of the eladrins. Stop playing with words to fit humanoïds payable species. Aasimar should be celestial. Tiefling: fiends. Etc.
9:15 Don't write my elf's backstory for me because you want me to still be affected by Hold Person! Use Magic: the Gathering-style multiple types or make Hold a spell for person and monster that you upcast to affect more HD. An elf leaving Faerie to quest in the mortal world is a fun trope; don't tell me to play a new Fey-type elf species to use it - too specific!
But that's a whole different species than the Elves in dnd. They sound cool and all, but dnd Elves have always been living in societies on the material plane. You could play your elf too, but that was never what the Player Handbook version of elf tried to represent
I think fay goblinoids is good decision. I personally use goblins as "force of the nature", some kind of endless and harmful magical creatures, not just living beings or sapient humanoids.
Let's hag out. ...I'm buying this book. It's pre-ordered. I want to support the devs. I want only for the failure of hasbro and wotc leadership. I hope an Arch Hag curses the C Suite.
While I fully understand the sentiment, we have to be at least a little careful whether this is achievable. I hate how Chris Cocks and the management team treat DnD (and MTG) but expect it’s the result of Hasbro being a publicly-traded company. Make profit targets or get replaced by your shareholders. One alternative is for the company to be taken private, which I encourage you to do! All it takes is gobs of money which, so long as we’re living in your proposed fantasy land, is no problem for you. Go for it! Otherwise, good luck with your hopes and dreams in all that you do.
Jeremy's long exposé on creature type shows me exactly while their approach rubs me the wrong way. "Humanoid" now means "reasonable member of a society" and thus anyone else is just wacky Other. They're monsters, not real people. This is in-universe demonstrably true! If you can't be held by Hold Person, you're clearly doesn't count as a person. Individuals who thought they were the same species exist separately. On the other hand, humanoids are the bland mush who require something else to make them interesting. Playable humanoid species are subjects who act, others are objects the be acted upon. No need to nuance. If you need me, I'll be working on a good replacement for creature type as a mechanic.
I'm considering following their idea to its extreme and sending all humanoids into other types (with humans, orcs, dwarves and halflings going to either beast or giant, I'm still split) but adding humanoid as a subtype to creatures and adjusting interactions to type in spells and abilities to account for this. I'm also considering doing something similar with monstrosities because I feel its always been a muddled type.
I had never heard of Fey until I saw some Disney like movie where she was evil and powerful. In AD&D 1e there were only Fairies and that's it. Unless they were under a different name. 🤷🏿♂🤷🏿♂
Bullywugs should not be Fey. They aren’t being of whimsy or emotion. They’re abandoned cannon fodder of a dead civilization that fail at building serious societies then get mad about it.
none of these changes are purely to keep the players on their toes after ten years of fighting the same creature type? also, if my players are elves, they are humanoid but all other elves are fey?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Since goblins are now fey, do they get to have a king who suspiciously resembles David Bowie?
Yes.
Pretty sure David Bowie just returned to the Feywild, after years of exploring the mortal realm.
As far as I care, yes.
I love how Archhags can now do the villain trope of "Until we meet again!" before vanishing after being defeated.
(insert the location where the previous fight against it took place) was only a setback!
The best thing about the Arch Hag's anathema is that it doesn't need to be a magical item. The DM can give it to the party & see them ditch the "useless necklace" because they found a more shining thing. The Hag herself can trade it for a magic item of protection.
Imagine 6 level 20’s vs the Arch hag Coven as a final fight in a campaign. Would be sick
It will be well wicked sick.
Ive been running an Arch hag/ Hag god as the big bad who’s story arch has gone through multiple campaigns.
And the worst part of this is that you can say goodbye to sneak attacks and surprise rounds.
Wow I wonder who will win.
@ probably the adventurers, remember it’s still 5e 😂
The arch hag sounds like fun. In some campaigns, the stat block could even be used for Baba Yaga. I could also see the new bugbear stat block being used for Krampus.
They got a krampus in the mm tho?
You could make Baba Yaga’s stat block more powerful, she is the mother of all witches after all.
@@byronentwistle8525 Im deff doing that. My players are about to start a Horror Feywild Story and Bana Yaga is a huge part of the story, and I am for sure buffing the Archhag just for her. I want to give my players a sense of dread when in her pressence
We have a Ranger and a Druid in our party and they’re both heavily connected to the Feywild by backstory. So we’ve had some killer encounters with Dryads and Satyrs and a whole blight of Mushroom Folk. I’ll be leaning heavy into this section of the new book.
From 5:00 to 10:00 is basically a long winded way of saying: yeah; the mechanics separating players and creatures don’t make sense. Ignore it. Which, I get is needed for the game they decided to make. But man, it makes the world-builder verisimilitude lover in me cry.
I get it from a game design standpoint. Especially since much of your party's synergy may only work on humanoids. But if my player wants their Goblin character to be fey, I'll allow it.
@@miles7224 Same. We already have fey species (changeling, fairy satyr, centaur, etc.) so why not let some goblinoids be fey. Same with Dragonborn being dragons.
Caring about verisimilitude in 2025 makes you a toxic gamer. The kind that Kyle Brink wants to get rid of. D&D is about nat20s letting you reshape reality, not anything resembling actually playing a game or sharing a sense of genre realism.
@@TabletopTruth huh?
@@gailengigabyte6221 me when i hit the party goblin with a planar binding (he owes me five gold)
The Fey Wild is OZ on acid.
Also Wonderland on shrooms
Dont forget shakespeare on booze
You can’t take it back, Crawford! We need an Epic level Haggis stat block now.
And PCs can go hunting the wild haggis, like Scotland does for tourists.
@ Aye, beware the Arch-Haggis, what stalks the glens and fens.
Based on the DNDBeyond article, Arch Hags are gonna be really cool, basically like the hag version of a lich with all sorts of fun curses.
It’s almost an antilich, since instead of having an object that must be destroyed, they have something that must be used
This is really nice. I hope they release a book in the future that depicts more fey creatures in different climates, like mountains, deserts, oceans, cold/snowy climates.
The Fey are like the saying all roses have thorns
& some roses have eyes! (In the Feywilds, of course) ;)
Not just. It's basically as if all roses had thorns *and* were thirsting for blood
Very clever of you guys to answer general questions about the game throughout these videos. We can watch not just for the monsters, but for important info like what you said about playable species. Good to know there's a logical reason behind some of the differentiations. Still hope minotaur are playable monstrosities, lol. 😆
As for the fey: Loving the new organization, challenges, and the way they always are so expressive. And the way you snuck in that tidbit about someone cursing in the monster manual right after talking about archhags, the masters of curses! 😆
My favorite example of fey creatures is the Dresden Files - they are alien, strange, whimsical, and can be extremely dangerous.
Best DnD quote remains, "Abracadavy, United States Navy." "Go for the Eyes, Boo!" takes second.
Ok, so idea. A hag and a necromancer fall in love. They work together until the necromancer does the work to become a lich and the hag becomes an arch hag. The phylactery is ALSO the anathema. So the party can't destroy the phylactery until they take down the arch hag and can't take down the arch hag until they find the phylactery.
I'm a little disappointed that a bunch of player species are Humanoid while others have their types changed. I would have loved if some of the players kept their typing, or made them some sort of hybrid (like Elves and gnomes would be Fey Humanoid, Aasimar could be Celestial Humanoid, Tiefling could be Fiend Humanoid, Goliaths could be Giant Humanoid, Dragonborn could be Dragon Humanoid, etc). Perhaps as a mechanic, they can get advantage on attacks that target Humanoids or type-specific effects.
The art in this book alone is worth the $50
Is there less resistance to poison in the new Monster Manual?
Other than hags, did the 2014 MM even have any good fey? I mean, I guess the sprites were useful as familiars for warlocks.
Yeah - Blink Dogs, Quicklings, Satyrs, Hags, Darklings, Dryads... Also don't forget since Witchlight, Goblinoids are Fey now as well.
Redcaps? Meenlocks? Idk, maybe some of those were MtF
There's some great ideas presented in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight adventure. I think that Korreds, Boggles, Brigganocks, and Changelings are fey. Interesting that Eladrin are humanoid, not fey... but maybe these expanded rules will change that. I'd like Leprechaun stats... they've been in earlier editions of D&D.
@@jamiehorton9958 Quests From the Infinite Staircase had a Leprechaun stat block!
Thanks! I've been meaning to pick that up. Have you played any of the adventures in that book?
Will you do one on elementals? They're my favorite creature category :)
Yooo, elemental enjoyer! Thats great, they are really underated
They’re doing one for every creature type so yes
Can't wait for this book to be available !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why not give additional creature types to goblin pc's ? feels like locking out their lore from the feywild if they ''stayed long enough in the material plane to lose some fey-ness"
6:36
So uh, yeah? A kobold in the wild is a DRAGON, but a kobold adventurer is a humanoid... Alright, alright. Bit weird, slightly regressive, but It opens up a question I've asked for literal years; Why aren't gnolls playable by this logic, then? They're a fiend, sure. But a gnoll adventurer would be a humanoid, yeah? Soooo, why can't we have that...? But if the reasons we cannot play gnolls the same as they've ever been in the past with official play like adventurer's league due to lore reasons- Then why are we allowed to play as orcs, drow, and goblinoids?
gnolls could be played many years ago in older editions -- would it be hard for someone to make a playable version for 5e (honest question - i dont play 5e)
@@StarFyreXXXMechanically no, races are simple in 5e and there's loads of gnoll homebrews out there.
Lore-wise it gets troublesome, since in the 2014 5e Monster Manuals, gnolls are essentially all bloodthirsty cultists of Yeenoghu. And in the new Monster Manuals they're Fiends instead of Humanoids.
Lack of sanity
I don't think Jeremy is praised enough for the passion for his job and his courage of being the main face of this book that would inevitably make a lot of old nerds angry (as they often do). Thank you for your work, Jeremy. It truly means a lot and will mean for years to come
Goblins and centaurs when the cleric reaches level 10 (their freedom is no more): 😨
I'm kind of on the fence with the idea of goblins, gith, etc being different creature types if they are player characters or monsters. I see the sense in it gamewise, but it does add some constraints to narrative background.
I just look at it as "which dimension are they native to?"
Sure it does, but restrictions should foster creativity.
For DM convenience, I can understand the decision lumping playable species into humanoids. However, it feels very strange that Goblin remains fey if elves and giths have adapted to the material plane through generations. They could have said it's just solely a mechanical reason. Anyway, our group will keep using their creature type before, no need to restrict them into humanoids.
I'm pretty sure what he said is essentially there are humanoid elves and fey elves, humanoid goblins and fey goblins. Just like the Eladrin in the Mordenkainen books. Some Gith are Aberrations, and some are Humanoid. Now, you have more variations of stat blocks to play with. You can take the Knight stat block and make it a humanoid Gith. Or you can use the Gith'yanki stat block and it's an aberration because it is more magically powerful.
The way I play it is that if an elven bloodline or goblin family has been living in the material plane for a long time they're likely humanoid, if they're from the feywild then they are Fey, because the Faywild charges them with more unpredictable magic.
One last thing, I know that we've had Celestial dwarves and elves and humans in the game for years because there were dwarves and elves and humans that were born in the upper planes such as Arcadia, that were Celestial instead of humanoid.
I think that one reason humanoids are moving to other types is to remove alignment tendencies from humanoids
Hold person was already weak at higher levels bc so few high cr monsters are humanoids. Taking away goblins and others makes hold person kind terrible as a spell choice.
Agreed! I feel that spells like hold person and hold monster shouldn't exist for a long while. It should be just "hold" and depending on the level you're casting, you'd be able to target higher cr creatures. Much simpler, effective and balanced imho
I agree! The spell has become less useful and less people are going to take it now.
I hope when talking about giants they talk about onis
As a current Witchlight DM I am very excited
I really hope if they reintroduce Eladrin as a PC race they make them fey. Of all elves, Eladrin not being Fey feels bad.
Where is my dad joke of the day? 😢 That would fit perfectly a chapter about most radical positive AND negative emotions ^^
Regarding Humanoid-Only spells: always believed in a Fey-Only, Undead-Only, etc version of most of these spells. It's just the Humanoid-Only version is well known among humanoids.
Take a drink every time they say "intentional".
Lol just started the video, I will keep an ear out haha
To be fair, lack of intentionality is one of people's favorite criticisms of WotC.
I like when they tell us when an interaction or multiple-book-spanning decision is intentional. It's the sibling of errata. It's good information.
Even if it is repetitious.
"...oooooooooooonnnn purpose..."
Arch Hag has got me thinking of Nanna Mori from CR3...shes scary ad
Is there any reason a player couldn't play a Fey elf from the Feywild? I'm not understanding why in 5E PC options sometimes have to be all Humanoid and sometimes are allowed to be other types (like with satyrs, plasmoids, thri-kreen, warforged, and autognomes).
I'm not trying to be a hater, it's just that the decisions process behind which PC species is a Humanoid versus which another creature type seems arbitrary from both a lore and mechanics standpoint. Why are kobolds dragons, but not dragonborn? Is there a reason DMs should require PC githyanki be humanoids who never lived in the Astral Sea and not allow aberration githyanki who have, and what about being separated from the Astral Sea makes a githyanki no longer an aberration when the reason given for their type is their origins with the mind flayers?
I think it's mainly because with the rules a creature can't have two different types, and a Fey elf species versus a Humanoid elf species is just two different species which is kind of unnecessary. I don't think they're saying that you CAN'T play an elf from the feywild, more than they wouldn't be entirely Fey.
I think I kinda understand what they're saying from a game design standpoint. Unifying the party by being humanoid, especially since some features may only work on humanoids. But if my player wants their Gith to be an Abberation or their Goblin to be Fey, I'll allow it.
It's simple, just tack on two creature types. The DM can treat you as either type for mechanical reasons, and the Player gets to choose which type they are for narrative reasons. It doesn't take a lot of work to make something fit for whatever narrative you are building.
Just shut up and pay WotC for more video game, cookie cutter, railroad products.
I played a maestro bard satyr that was corrupted to join a cult that uses the arts to corrupt creatures to join. The DM asked me to run a boss battle with him against the party after he became an NPC. The cult was going to use a theatre show to corrupt the entire city. He was practicing for opening night with an entire animated orchestra when the party turned up to defeat him.
I imagine the Feywild like Wonderland. Beautiful, surreal, and sinister
I enjoy most of what's being done but you guys seem to talk in circles. "We do things for a reason! Until ... you know ... we don't." At the beginning you talk about anything from the Feywild being Fey, or things with some fey distance. Then you talk about Elves and their Fey ancestry but are like "But not THESE guys." The number of knots I see the creators come up with as to not include elves as Fey is ACTUALLY frustrating. 4th edition didn't get a lot right but lore with Elves and Gnomes were on point. They were just fey, and they SHOULD be. I've been hoping for an official correction but you guys seem to dig your heels into "well game balance says we shouldn't for now" OR "We're deciding your background by deciding your elves aren't from the feywild and haven't been for awhile."
I really love every other video and I love the fey in general, which is why this bothers me so much. I'll keep doing my thing but good lord people, stop talking in circles. Still liking the video and buying it all up though. I'll keep homebrewing that part away so its consistent ...
Hagness Evermeen!
"We wanted [Goblins] to not just feel like regular people in goblinoid suits" yeah because WotC saves that sentiment for Orcs, Drow, Dragonborn, etc.
Why was there no build a monster section, like show us the math and stuff to make our own homebrew monsters with 2024 rules. Give us all the traits that appear in the MM, show us how to make an accurate monster to mirror the CR(like a CR 5 monster). Show us how to make low cr monsters into a deadlier cr, and vice versa. This is my only gripe lol.
Isnt there a section like that in the DMs guide? I think not exactly with calculations bit there was something there.
@ there is a create a creature section, but it’s 2 pages and is pretty bare bones
It seems like there just wasn't space for it in the new books, though I believe they've said it's something they want to cover eventually.
Theres No space. Thats not a good idea, no monster manual did that so theres no precedent either.
There will be a seperate book if anything to show the build rules.
Not anymore. They actually made the dms guide a guide to run the game
absolutely abore the classical style on the fairy art
You guys should allow Joe Manganiello to make his dragon lance TV series.
23:35 im so glad you guys are adding more to babayaga she is one of my favorite characters another one I hope you guys add to in this manual would be the pale night I would love a CR30 or higher fight with the creature who is so much more powerful than the demogorgan that she just lets him think he rules knowing full well that if she ever wanted to take the throne of demons she could take it in a thought.
4:12 Wait, is that bullywug’s wig made of corndogs?
That was my first thought too lol, but I think they're probably cattails
In the future we'll get to play non-humanoid type creatures! Yes! He just confirmed we'll get to play as Beholders in this edition!!!!!!
Did you pull a muscle making that stretch?
@Fat_Panda_Gamer Nope, I did get a 5 on my Acrobatics check but I am a Human so I used my Heroic Action to reroll and got an 18 on my Acrobatics.
My joke is very limber.
17:40 that is exactly how I would explain that too.
Ngl not a fan of the "your gith or fey has lived most of their life on the material plane" justification. It feels like it takes away player agency when crafting a backstory, and making a "I'm just inherently one of the good ones" forced narrative that rarely goes well
Having just started a Wild Beyond the Witchlight game, I'm definitely sending this to the DM
Are elves considered fey now? And if elves have been around in the prime material long enough to no longer be considered fey then what about goblins? Their lives are shorter and they've been in the prime material the same amount of time as the elves
Paraphrasing:
"The monster could have been on the material plane their entire life but still be Fey, but the players can't do that because they will have been on the material just enough for them to be considered humanoid."
such fragile justification
How Maglubyet will be retconned?
I was thinking the same thing lol, could be a good though. There's so many gods in the cosmology and not enough Archfey
@@keonilewis6482 I'm not sure. Acheron infinite battlefields now seems a lot emptier.
@@keonilewis6482, and the Feywild a lot crowded.
There are duendes, red caps, leprechauns and many more pranksters.
I realy think this is bad to the lore.
@@juliocmbaia I am a newbie when it comes to DnD lore but correct me if I am (terribly) wrong, but from what I have seen, the lore of the Feywild and its inhabitants is kind of undeveloped compared to other areas of the multiverse, unless I was't looking hard enough.
I think Bullywugs should be Fey but Grungs be Humanoid.
I thinks it more of a ancestry in terms of location and culture similar to our ancestry and culture
Would you add effect "if you use magic to get information about hags anathema, you are cursed by this hag"?
Okay, gonna scream into the Void again because, What?......These creature type changes and the resjustifications for those change are inconsistent..... just make dual type creatures and species it would solve all of these issues. Are goblins humanoid yes, are goblins fey yes, two things can be true at the same time. say your gith is humanoid because they've lived for so long in the prime material plane when yesterday they said they were abberations because they were inherently twisted into unknowable versions of what they once were. You know what Xanathar is a montrosity now, he's been on the sword coast so long that he's no longer an aberration. That's where this leads just make dual types guys. Please just make dual types a thing and save yourself the issue.
Does this mean that all non-player elves in the Monster Mannual now have the Fey creature type? The lore reason given was that the player character elf is one that has spent the majority of their life on the Prime Material plane so "lost" their "feyness", but the vast majority of elves I've seen in campaigns this is also true? Elves on the PM are one of the most common races and it'd seem weird if they're all fey now despite having elven empires no where near the Feywild.
What’s weird is that I imagine all goblinoids as fitting that description for why PC elves are humanoids.
@@themuzzy2020 Goblins at least still "feel" slightly different, living isolated from humans and other humanoids. If all elves are now fey, one of the most common "humanoid" races is no longer humanoid.
It seems like it'd have fairly significant balancing issues of a bunch of spells just not working on a large amount of what are most often treated as "people" and I'm not sure where the difference would be between fey elves and eladrin since eladrin were meant to be the elves that stuck around the feywild more.
How did you come to that conclusion?
@athena-love Around 8:04 they talk about difference between player character creature types and monster stat blocks creature types, 8:54 they mention elves specifically where many elves ancestors were fey but the player elf is humanoid. They're not explicit about other NPC stat block elves being fey but I'm not sure why else they'd have said this.
@ I get that but it doesn't mean you can't play an elf from the feywild. I think sometimes there doesn't need to be a lore reason for everything, and player elves being humanoid is fine.
I wish that they had the Pixie player race come back. It was perfect in 4th edition.
I disagree with making goblinoids fey. There is no reason for the change and it needlessly nerfs multiple spells.
I'll be honest, I expected to see some other new monsters, not just the arch hag and some monstrosities and humanoids being moved here, especially for lower levels.
I hope some good expansion in Glory of The Giants style will be released for this type of creatures
I was on the fence with this book, as well as the other 2024 edition books, but this Archhag has persuaded me this book needs to be on my shelf
I'm so happy i LOVE hags I'm running a hag centered campaign and i finally know what stat block i can use!
Imaginr a Male Archhag who do deals with relevant npc and have a dagger as Anathema. Yes I think about Rumpelstiltskin from Once Upon a Time 👀
I love fey so much!
I would like to be able to play a medium size fairy without needing to negotiate with a DM... When the next version of Monster of the Multiverse with changes and new playable races?
Does that make the arch hag stronger than the Queen of Air and Darkness??
I don’t know, Mab is pretty formidable.
great job with the videos guys, I hope they serve their promotional purpose well because they are already just plain good content.
Ok pet peeve. I really like to build characters based off of an NPC statblock category. I made a Hobgoblins Eldritch Knight designed to be a student from the School of Devastation to be a Hobgoblin Devastator.
Since now the default goblins we encounter are Fey, it feels weird that it seems like Goblin PCs won’t be. Same as Gith being Aberrations in their stat block. If I wanna build a Gish Astral Knight, it’ll be odd if they’re a humanoid while their peers are aberrations.
Agreed, there needs be more non-humanoid player species. For now you'll just have to use an Emerald Pen to replace your creature type.
16:13 I think you mean a "reeder" of Satyrs 😏
So now every single elf pc has to have a family line stretching back generations because they’re humanoids.
I love most of these changes in the monster manual but I do think they restrict the incentive of players to take spells like Charm Person. I know they kinda touch on that but many people, especially new players sometimes will pick spells based on effectiveness or what they deem to be a natural logical flow. “It looks like a human and it can talk and is intelligent? Charm Person probably will work on it.” And so while I love the variety, I am a little worried it may skew people to do more combat focused spells than they already do
Very exited about a weaker goblin variant!
RIGHT?!
We need to make fighting them even less of a challenge.
❤this
... in the Expanded rules, there already ARE playable races that are not Humanoid.
Plasmoid (Ooze), Satyr (Fey), Hexblood (Fey), & Fairy (Fey).
Why are we so deeply stuck on "playable races MUST be Humanoid" ...?
I suppose it's for balance issues since some early spells like Hold Person and Charm Person can be a threat to players, especially the former and ignoring it by just being anything but humanoid can be a bit broken for some DMs (and some of them outright banning them from their campaigns). At higher level it might not matter much since there are variants that can target them but most campaign start at low level and rarely get at high, epic levels.
Then again, any DM can just ignore it and keep them are they are instead of making player's characters humanoid.
They say at 10:37 that they are going to be adding more non-humanoid playable species in the future. When they're talking about humanoid goblins and gith they're referring to races from older books that are still playable due to backwards compatibility.
@@GLORPDORP But there's no reason to bend over backwards like that. Just include 2024-rules entries for those updated races for players to use, in the MM.
@@shaktosh524 Except, as I pointed out above, using Expanded Rules supplements you CAN still play non-Humanoid races.
If goblins are fey, than elves should be too. Just think of the eladrins. Stop playing with words to fit humanoïds payable species. Aasimar should be celestial. Tiefling: fiends. Etc.
They *did* say ancient elves would be fey, etc... Its only the "domesticated" elves who are humanoid, and the same goes for gith, tieflings, etc
9:15 Don't write my elf's backstory for me because you want me to still be affected by Hold Person! Use Magic: the Gathering-style multiple types or make Hold a spell for person and monster that you upcast to affect more HD.
An elf leaving Faerie to quest in the mortal world is a fun trope; don't tell me to play a new Fey-type elf species to use it - too specific!
But that's a whole different species than the Elves in dnd. They sound cool and all, but dnd Elves have always been living in societies on the material plane. You could play your elf too, but that was never what the Player Handbook version of elf tried to represent
Should have spent more time on the fantasy and less on the virtue signaling.
Monster manual making good use of that PG 13 rating i'm seeing lol
I think fay goblinoids is good decision. I personally use goblins as "force of the nature", some kind of endless and harmful magical creatures, not just living beings or sapient humanoids.
Please tell me the Summer and Winter Queens are in here as well.
My Harengon is Fey, not gonna tell me otherwise.
"what about playable monsters?"
"You need to buy a different book in the future"
Fiends video next? i hope so, my fav monster type alongside undeads
Are Oberon, Titania, Puck and the rest of their court native of the Feywild?
Imagine campaign about archhag anti-monarchist, that has princess baby teeth as anafema, and just want to end all monarchy in the world.
Question: when you inevitably introduce new player species for all these are they still keeping these designations?
Is it me or is the lighting really weird in this video? They all look like they have snapchat filters on and seem very fuzzy
They've been transported to the feywild 😂
Night Hag ? Malagard?
Detroit: Become humanoid
Controversial opinion vampires should be fey.
Disappointed there wasn't any dad joke from Todd this time around
Let's hag out.
...I'm buying this book. It's pre-ordered. I want to support the devs. I want only for the failure of hasbro and wotc leadership. I hope an Arch Hag curses the C Suite.
While I fully understand the sentiment, we have to be at least a little careful whether this is achievable.
I hate how Chris Cocks and the management team treat DnD (and MTG) but expect it’s the result of Hasbro being a publicly-traded company. Make profit targets or get replaced by your shareholders. One alternative is for the company to be taken private, which I encourage you to do! All it takes is gobs of money which, so long as we’re living in your proposed fantasy land, is no problem for you. Go for it! Otherwise, good luck with your hopes and dreams in all that you do.
Jeremy's long exposé on creature type shows me exactly while their approach rubs me the wrong way. "Humanoid" now means "reasonable member of a society" and thus anyone else is just wacky Other. They're monsters, not real people. This is in-universe demonstrably true! If you can't be held by Hold Person, you're clearly doesn't count as a person. Individuals who thought they were the same species exist separately. On the other hand, humanoids are the bland mush who require something else to make them interesting. Playable humanoid species are subjects who act, others are objects the be acted upon. No need to nuance.
If you need me, I'll be working on a good replacement for creature type as a mechanic.
I'm considering following their idea to its extreme and sending all humanoids into other types (with humans, orcs, dwarves and halflings going to either beast or giant, I'm still split) but adding humanoid as a subtype to creatures and adjusting interactions to type in spells and abilities to account for this. I'm also considering doing something similar with monstrosities because I feel its always been a muddled type.
@@robintowers3223 That's not a bad idea! I've felt the same way about monstrosities, so this makes much more sense.
I think Gnomes should be Fey.
9:20 Elves have no faenus. Loud and clear.
I had never heard of Fey until I saw some Disney like movie where she was evil and powerful. In AD&D 1e there were only Fairies and that's it. Unless they were under a different name. 🤷🏿♂🤷🏿♂
Bullywugs should not be Fey. They aren’t being of whimsy or emotion. They’re abandoned cannon fodder of a dead civilization that fail at building serious societies then get mad about it.
It depends on the setting they come from. Not that this matters anymore since they are homogenising everything to one setting.
none of these changes are purely to keep the players on their toes after ten years of fighting the same creature type?
also, if my players are elves, they are humanoid but all other elves are fey?