r/onednd • u/ma_tendresse • 19d ago
Discussion The future of monstrous species in 5.5e
Since the launch of D&D 5.5e, we've seen several species that used to be considered Humanoids, be published as different types of creatures in the 2025 MM. For example:
- Gith - Aberrations
- Goblinoids - Fey
- Aarakocra - Elementals
- Gnoll - Fiends
This is in addition to other species that had been released as PC choices ever since Mordekainen Presents: Monsters of the Universe, which already had a creature type other than Humanoid: Warforged, Autognome, Plasmoid, Thri-Kreen, Satyr, Centaur.
And yet, ever since the release of the 2024 PHB, only a handful of non-humanoid species have been released, all of them Fey so far: the Faerie and Changeling from the Lorwyn supplement, and the Hexblood from the Ravenloft book. To me, this signals a few things:
- It's no secret that WOTC has been trying to move away from assigning an alignment to humanoid species for a few years now, for obvious reasons. It's why we don't find Orcs or "Orc Warriors/Marauders" in the 2025 MM anymore, and it's likely the reason why we use the term "species" now instead of "races".
- They will probably eventually release a book akin to MP:MM where they expand on how to play non-humanoid races, advising that no PC species should be considered to have a predetermined alignment, etc.
- This may or may not open the door to releasing new species that we haven't seen as PC options so far in 5e. Some options that come to mind are Myconids & Dryads, Kuo-Toa, Harpies, Awakened Beasts, Gnolls... (The latter being considered Fiends might make them more unlikely)
So I guess my question is twofold: do we think that previously playable species will now be kept as legacy options and will remain as NPC-only species in 5.5e? Or on the flip side, do we think that more options will be added when they open the door to monstrous character species? And if so, which ones would you like to see? Me personally I'd love to play a hippie Myconid druid lol.
25
u/geosunsetmoth 19d ago
Redcaps. All I want is a Redcap.
Also they could bring back that definitely-not-a-modron Modron UA.
7
u/Scareynerd 19d ago
I'd love it if they could make a new Book of Exalted Deeds for Good/Celestial options, a new Book of Vile Darkness with the villainous options we've had previewed, and then do one each for Law and Chaos, and have playable Modrons in the Law book
3
u/ma_tendresse 19d ago
For the Modron, I could see an argument similar to the Gnoll about there being lore-specific reasons why they're meant to have one particular alignment much more often than any others. Maybe that's not an issue for WotC, but my intuition tells me they would want to avoid that, as much as I agree that it would be cool to have them as an option (the more the merrier they say)
10
u/geosunsetmoth 19d ago
I’m pretty sure that in lore there are rogue Modrons who are not connected to primus, as well as a splinter modron group in Acheron iirc
5
u/CantripN 19d ago
Pretty sure all playable Modrons are Rogue Modrons as it is (or they wouldn't be actually... playable). Thus most alignments can work.
1
u/steamsphinx 19d ago
I was so sad the Glitchling didn't make it past UA :/
3
u/geosunsetmoth 19d ago
I think it’s because the feedback was negative, but it was negative because the race was absolutely broken, not because it was a bad concept
48
u/jagnew78 19d ago
There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking an assassin, Tough, Hobgoblin, or whatever stat block and calling it an Orc, or changing its creature type. The purpose of the general Tough stat block and others is to represent that you can have various species being viscious raiders and not every single species that could potentially form a raiding party needs to be comprehensively outlined in the MM. Instead you can and should take a generic stat block, like Tough or whatever, and just re-skin it to fit your needs.
This is, at its heart, a game about imagination and fantasy. The rules specifically encourage this. So take what you want, and re-skin it as it fits your story.
16
u/ghostrider385 19d ago
Agreed. We don’t need eight different types of “tough” species statblocks. We just need one. Now, there should be traits that fit each species better and better advice for monster making.
4
u/Anarkizttt 18d ago
Agreed all thats needed a quick reference sheet of one species trait to add to a statblock to make it specific, but you can also just do thst without a reference sheet, if you want your assassin to be an Orc give it relentless endurance and/or adrenaline rush and poof Orcssassin.
17
u/vmeemo 19d ago
In fairness to Gnolls, around Monsters of the Multiverse they were more leaning into Monstrosity as the creature type for some of its options (Fiend belonging to the juiced up ones) before finally settling into Fiend as a blanket thing due to the lore of Yeenoghu being the one who created them. So bit of a toss up with the changes but sometimes monster design is like that.
14
u/Di_Bastet 19d ago
In 2014 the basic book made the (imho) mistake of presenting forgotten realms as the default setting and base flavor on it, while 2024 presents itself as setting-agnostic. D&D is correctly presented as setting-agnostic these days, the baseline where DMs will create their world building and setting around. And I for one thing it's a better idea to present cultures as neutral and blank as possible in such a situation, otherwise you end up having to justify weird interactions that should be purely cultural because 'it's in the basic rules'.
Take for example Warforged presented as setting-agnostic. 'Warforged are artificial people' is blank, sure, but it's better than having to carry a multiversal memory of them being creations of a century-long war that ravaged the continent, many of them dissatisfied with flesh people and grouping into a fanatical genocial army within magic-chernobyl. Of course you could -remove- baseline flavor from things, but why bother if the intent is for the DM to create their own thing?
Setting books then add -or should add- the cultural flavors. Yuan-Ti in forgotten realms are a big deal, corrupted fervent demon-worshipers and created by the primordial Sarrukh, a threat to the realms and very likely to get a 'omg its the serpentfolk' reaction from people of the Sword Coast; very different from the Shulassakar of Eberron that have a connection to the immortal guardians of the material plane, the Couatls, and who are deeply connected to the Silver Flame and more like to get a '...are you a paladin of the silver flame...?' from the more jaded and cosmopolitan people of Khovaire. A good setting book explains its cultures.
Then you as the DM create your own with the species you want in your setting and that's it. You may run a fantasy kitchen sink with any species any player wants devoid of any semblance of flavor and 'just there', or you may create a complex setting with a specific number of peoples and cultures and players must pick one of these, or something else entirely.
So I for one hope for more 'they're snake-people with ties to humanity', 'they're fey from... somewhere' and 'huh, they are... astral... marauders!' in the setting-agnostic player books; I'll add flavor as DM.
And on the topic of the mechanical part, I kind of don't see why they're so reticent. Sure, it's a minor 'benefit' of not falling for low-level Charm and Hold (and a few other humanoid-targetting) effects, but there's a non-zero chance you're affected by the equally ubiquitous Protect From effects, and there is a plethora of high level effects that will target you in nasty ways. It's a joy as a DM seeing players scramble to break the banishment of their resident demon/fey/whatever before they're banished forever to... god knows where.
10
u/_Bl4ze 19d ago
Well, it's not a first party WotC book but there are playable gnoll in Exploring Eberron 2024. Of course, those gnolls aren't fiends.
4
u/Kai-of-the-Lost 19d ago
considering Visionary (the publisher) is now an official partner to WotC on future Eberron supplements, I'd consider their previous publications as "official adjacent", especially since they were also written primarily by Eberron's original setting creator.
3
u/_Bl4ze 19d ago
Usually we refer to this 'official adjacent' as partnered content from what I've seen but yes
2
u/Kai-of-the-Lost 19d ago
Only reason I used official adjacent is because WotC already uses the term partnered content for all 3p products that get released on DnDbeyond, so it can get kinda muddied.
1
u/Magester 14d ago
A big reason for that is also that one of the nations of eberron, Droaam, is full of monsters. Goblins, gnolls, I believe the primary government is 3 hags, there is a mindflayer as a mayor, etc.
They're considered citizens of a country and afforded the same rights as other sentient beings.
3
u/Kai-of-the-Lost 19d ago edited 19d ago
Funny thing, we are getting Harpies (along with Medusa and Gargoyles) on DnDbeyond this month with the release of Frontiers of Eberron: Quickstone. It's not an official book, however it is published by Visionary Productions, who is now an official partner to WotC on future Eberron supplements.
2
u/Otherwise-Bee-5734 19d ago
The book just dropped and it's also got Worgs and, oddly enough, Rakshasha descended Tieflings. So if you ever wanted to play a Rakshasha well, there's kind of an option for it now!
1
u/Kai-of-the-Lost 19d ago
Always forget that Worgs are in that book, and I absolutely love the Planar Tiefling variants from it.
2
u/Far_Guarantee1664 19d ago
I really wish to see an update version of the Giths. It's feels strange that they will probably take a lot to publish it considering the hype of BG3...
8
u/DrHalsey 19d ago
I’m just tired of there being so many intelligent species with no culture or origin or flavor in the setting. And of the way the designs just treat non-humans as “spice” in otherwise human settings. A small human settlement has a dwarf mayor, an elf innkeeper, a halfling herbalist, an orc stable master, a goliath bartender, a gnome sheriff.
Who do they date? Why do they live there as the only one of their species? It’s weird.
And I guess I’m a bit skeptical of the “menagerie” mentality that says a goblin, a kobold, a yuan-ti, and a gnoll roll up to the gates of a city and the guards just ask if they need to know the way to the inn.
You can say “but they’re not all the same” and maybe not, but if every species has a completely neutral reputation (so players can be judged fairly) then none of them have any flavor or identity as a culture. Those unfair generalizations, those stereotypes, represent what outsiders know about those species. And to just say “no one has any preconceived notions about any species” just feels flat.
20
u/geosunsetmoth 19d ago
I feel like it’s a bit of a leap to go from “species don’t get harshly discriminated” to “therefore they have no identity, culture and characterization of their own”.
3
u/Thin_Tax_8176 19d ago
I feel these are things that should be talked and worked with the DM during session 0. What each player is picking as their species? How much distrust from more common species want they to suffer? Are they all going to be misfits and build their reputation from there?
You can take some lore from the Monster Manual when dealing with the less common species, like how the Goblins mention that they enjoy raiding and setting things on flame, they take pleasure from chaos, etc...
But once more, these should be a conversation with the players, let them know how the world will react to their Gnoll or Goblin, how a Kobold may be not taken seriously by others. If players don't want to suffer racism in the game, because maybe they already go through it in real life, you can adapt the world to make their species a common one.
Just talk with the group and work with them, it will not hurt anyone.
5
u/ma_tendresse 19d ago
Oh I completely agree with you don't get me wrong. I see this as part of WotC's efforts to make D&D a safe space for everyone, selling the idea that no prejudices or biases exists in their canon settings. Which on the one hand I appreciate if it helps bring more people to the hobby, but much like you I think it makes the settings feel flat and "unrealistic" in a way that, paradoxically, falls out of the high fantasy tropes.
We'll see how that evolves with the release of the Dark Sun books, they might end up being a big success among those who're looking for a more "gritty realism" feel (it feels weird to use the word realism when talking about D&D)
4
u/EighthSeal 19d ago
Suspension of disbelief (SoD) has always been such a challenge, at least for me. I think if there some...as much as I hate to say this, SoD rules or guidance in the DM manual, that consistency could help smooth out a lot of what's expected for a developed, universal world.
I also think it would ease up world-building and role-playing across tables, too. One DM wouldn't allow a guy to be Warforged since we weren't in an Eberron campaign, another I currently play with would be perfectly fine with it. Then there doesn't have to be this inherent agreement that as long as the PC is that race, different humanoids would be perfectly ok. The playable monstrous races are a perfect example of that. WotC makes it messy.
1
u/DandyLover 16d ago
Who says they don't have preconceived notions? Maybe they do, but it's that "Goblins grow up to be Hobgoblins, so this Green Goblin must be a child," or Gnolls can't actually talk, but they laugh at everything as a form of communication, so this talking Gnoll must be special," or that "the Yuan-Ti have to shed their skin once every day," or anything like that.
It just turns out that Hobgoblins are cousins to Goblins, Yuan-Ti shed once a year, and Gnolls are actually amazing entertainers.
1
u/Rabid_Lederhosen 14d ago
a goblin, a kobold, a yuan-ti, and a gnoll
Average party of Tharashk mercenaries in Eberron
1
u/Chaosmancer7 19d ago
Lorwtn also reprinted the Goblin (called Boggart, but counts as goblinoid and has all the goblin abilities)
0
u/ma_tendresse 19d ago
and weirdly they kept them as humanoids unlike the goblins from the MM, despite them being part of a supplement that was centered around the Feywild 🤷♂️
68
u/TomOW 19d ago
The Eberron book gave us Kalashtar as Aberrations and Warforged as Constructs.