I like the idea of a test to PCs to see how kind they are. A deva pretends to be multiple people in need, and then appears in their natural form later with a gift based on how much the players did to help, or a divine curse if they took advantage of anyone
@ in my case I am the DM and I am not sure on what I'll do. Will have to wait and see what options remain before I make the choice. Much like many a DM I run things from all over the place too and I intend to keep using variations from 2014 and elsewhere as the DM for varying reasons so I'll personally probably allow it. Not sure how the DM that runs the campaign I play in will go but I'm a cleric in that so it doesn't affect me so much anyway.
It appears that Solars are now Seraphim given how they now have three pairs of wings. I love the new direction of celestials having wings that resemble things in the sky like the Sphinx of Wonder having galaxy wings in the new PHB. It's especially great for Aasimar inspiration, you could have one that uses their celestial revelation to sprout wings resembling a black hole.
@nicolaszaffarano5420 I like how a lot of things have returned from older editions in this new updated version of 5e. The bloodied mechanic and minions from 4e are back, the Gold Dragon resembles an eastern dragon which is a return to its past design from 1e and 2e and Greyhawk is back as a setting in the DMG.
I can't believe they made the sphinx faces even more catlike, over the editions it's just been a movement away from them being the unnerving but intimidating freaks they are in mythology. I wish creatures with human faces on non human bodies were more common in fiction, they're so cool and otherworldly when done right.
So do I, but it won't happen sadly, there are very few new creatures in the book that aren't variants, the only new none variant Celestial being the animal lords. So every other new Celestial is a variant of existing Celestials, Sphinx of Wonders, Sphinx of Secrets, Sphinx of Valour (replaces Androsohinxl ), Sphinx of I forget what (replaces Gynosphinx), Iota Empyrean. Of ans it's been mentioned else where Sphinxes, Giant Eagles, Giant Owls, and Giant Elk are all Celestials now.
I'm totally on board with giant eagles etc being celestial now. The idea of a fiendish empyrean gave me goosebumps. We've had giants, oozes, aberrations, monstrosities, fey, undead, dragons and now celestials. Just beasts, humanoids, fiends, plants, elementals and constructs to go. We're over half way now.
Boy, you're really stepping on my toes with this change to Empyreans. If it's just RAW that Empyreans can be Fiends or Celestials, my freaky Fallen Angels that I love including aren't going to be as surprising...
Eberron Rising From the Last War already had fallen Angel called the Radiant Idol. And Empyreans aren't Angels, They are Titians, including funnily enough the the CR1 Medium sized Empyrean Iota, which means unlike Angels if they get enough worship, they become Gods. Also weird that could happen to Elemental Cataclysms, Colossus, Beast Lords, and Kraken. This doesn't happen to Angels.
Well, they seem to be mostly expanding on existing creatures from the old Monster Manual. But we had some new ones too like the Arch-Hag and Animal Lord, though those are high CR. Maybe there will be a Volume 2 Monster Manual later that upgrades creatures from older 5E adventures and Volo's Guide/Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes?
@@SwiftNimblefoot so far what I learned from review videos is that Sphinxes (there are 4 now, two renamed), Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, and Giant Elk are all Celestials now. Empyreans get little thought buddies Iota Empyreans. And we get Beast Lords (with three variants in one stat block). No other completely new Celestials, although there might be other creatures shifted to Celestial or maybe Angel/Coualt/Pegasus/Unicorn variants. Personally simular to the Beast Lord I'd give the Deva single stat block variants Astral/Modanic/Movonic.
I want to visit the beastlands and make friends with all the talking animals. My inner child wants talking animal friends, and is so happy that they're officially the angels they always were! 😆 And I happy that you're explaining the broadness of good and how being very old effects it!
The thumbnail is really promising, when thinking of Celestials I think of gods and angels. Judging by the thumbnail they have a hint of Pillar Men from Jojo's Bizarre adventure, stylish fashionable fitness gods.
I watched the Saturday morning cartoon in the 80s and I've owned dozens of books over the years and half as many video games but I never found any friends to play with irl. Still love the game and its universe though
I can't believe they made the sphinx faces even more catlike, over the editions it's just been a movement away from them being the unnerving but intimidating freaks they are in mythology. I wish creatures with human faces on non human bodies were more common in fiction, they're so cool and otherworldly when done right.
@solarporpoise6756 There's the Shedu, and the Lammasu... hope they bring them back someday. And yes, sadly D&D turned Sphinxes into just winged Lions, it is something 4E already started... I wish they brought back the other variants, like the Criosphinx and Dracosphinx and Hieracosphinx!
Am I crazy, or did he say he was going to give us an example of an Empryean Iota and then not do that? Do you mean the manifestation of Hope can be a character? What exactly are you saying?
If they wanted to add more Sphinxes, why not add the classic ones? Hieraco- and Criosphinxses have been in D&D since the 80ies... It is kinda disappointing that they all look like winged cats from... what is that kids' show, Elena of Avalor?
Moon Druids are actually much better now, one less flying form isn't a big deal with how the animal form works now. If you have MotM, Quetzalcoatlus is still the best
I think the intent is not to try soft lock these moon druid shapes, also becuase it's specifically stated on the PHB that you can just grab non-beast statblocks with DM's permission. It's like pretending that Owlbear is not a Wild Shape option, while I think most of the tables would just allow that
Do you know where it says that? I found the line about selecting "Beasts" from other sources with DM permission (right above the Beast Shapes table), and if what you say about non-beasts is true it should be shouted from the rooftops.
@noryb324 it says _elsewhere_ , why not the 2014 PHB? Why not some other homebrew material? I think that, honesty, DMs should stop worrying about book constraints. Obviously the developers cannot say that you can wild shape into another creature other than beasts, but your DM can just rule that you can shape shift into a unicorn, why not
I think it would be cool if the Angels could look not just like pretty humans, but also pretty Dragonborn and pretty orcs and pretty other humanoid species.
That line of thinking is what causes so much drama when a new monster manual comes out. It's your game world and the only person that would prevent that from being the case is a very unimaginative DM.
@@mitchminteer317 I just think it interesting how many people seem to need confirmation before allowing themselves to have fun. "I want a psi dragonborn for my Spelljammer campaign!" "You can make one you know?" "I need someone e l s e to make it! Rawr!" Like bro 😂
Cannon in all of my settings that creatures with true sight see biblically accurate angels instead of the humanoid ones. Ancient dragons don't enjoy talking to angels gives them head aches. Mortals with truesight will go risk going blind and take a certain amount of radiant damage when they see an angels true form. Oh and obviously the beast lords are clearly celestial (beasts) because dual types. The Void knows why.
I do something similar, but I go even more out there with using the solar’s searing light ability as them temporarily dropping their physics forms and blinding you with their true selves
Not having giant eagles as a wild shape option seems an insane change to me. I mean not having owl bears as an option was already weird but this is just odd. I get that the DM can just say yeah it’s fine to do so and I’ll definitely be having my say on multiple creature types when I DM. But thus far I think the new edition has really mishandled some of these type changes, which is a shame as I really liked some of the other changes.
I don't like the fiend empyrean. Prefer evil celestials as an option, like the fallen idol. I think if we want a fiend analog I think it's ok to make a new thing.
You can still have Evil Celestial Empyreans (both Iota & Empyreans), the Fiend or Celestial thing is based on the alignment of the Empyrean's parents/creator, not it's own personal alignment. Unlike most other fiends/celestials Empyreans as Quasi Gods have true free will and can choose their alignment. A Good God produces Celestial Empyreans and an Evil God produces Fiendish Empyreans, but that does not mean the Empyrean has to share the parents alignment. Example maybe there is a evil Celestial Empyrean that was a bad guilty thought a good God purged from their mind while purfying itself.
Kind of disappointed there weren’t any “biblically accurate angels”. I was hoping their new epic level celestial would be a writhing non-Euclidean mass of eyes, wings, and searing light.
And that's what really annoys me about celestials. Like you have fiends who are always evil, but what is their oposition? That of an absolute evil? A category of creatures that is good, neutral or even just evil and tagged as fiends sometimes. I really hoped they wouldn't go this way again, like I really just wanted a good in a cosmic scale creatures, not another fey but made by gods -_- Back to homebrewing 98% of angels I guess.
Angels are still Good, it's the Empyreans that are Neutral (and Neutral in the context of the MM just means they are free to pick any alignment they want, unlike most "outsiders" like Angels, Archon, Devils, Demons, Empyreans have true free will like Mortals do, because they are Quasi Gods (Titans).
I mean, they're literally supposed to be counterparts of the fiends. I get that there have been Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, and Fallen Celestials portrayed in pop-culture; but are you gonna tell me there's also a problem with associating fiends, like Demons and Devils, with Evil?
They "could" be bad celestials.. but i going to say anything that is "evil and will attack you for your cookies" comes from down below not from the sky.
You could have made the giant beasts all be beasts that act as templates and have rules for making plane touched variants that swap that creature type and not inadvertently add unnecessary gameplay or lore restrictions/retcons? This seems like a pointless thing to publish unless you're just using it to cut down wild shape/polymorph options? If it's something like that then don't say some nonsense about it making more sense than what was the prior design approach...
Tbf some of the giant animals were less animalistic than the Owlbear, So they're not exactly wrong in saying they'd fit better in the Celestial category.
@BramLastname beyond ones published later in the pre 2024 run of books, which were already categorized as fey, if they had weird magic and even then not many. the only non-beast things some had were higher mental stats and languages which could just as easily be aspects of variant rules or templates dropped on beasts like I suggested.
Thank you for your great dedictation for dungeons follower like me you mack rpg great again hi hi hi tack car of all of you your great guys and girls we love you FOR THÉ GREATER GOOD OF LESSER EVIL ON EARTH ❤
The Giant Owl and Eagle are no longer beasts?! Why do you hate moon Druids so much? First I hear they only get 3 more beasts from CR 4-6 - one of them a f-ing squid. All I wanted was some variety and interesting beast. But now we LOST beasts?! If you'd just given us a bunch of Dire animals that would have been better than what we got. You should have just stuck with the wild shape templates, but given more options. That's what I suggested back during the playtest. People didn't hate the idea of the template. They hated the lack of options. Which is the same problem they now have with high level CR. And because people always bring up "no one plays at high level" that is a bad argument that leads to lazy game design. If no one plays at that level, then don't make it an option. Or put as much effort into all tiers of play.
It definitely felt targeted to druids flight choices rather than sentiments which really stinks especially because they held off flying beasts till level 9 it seems like a needless nerf
Sphinx makes sense giant animals because of sapience is strange like a Raven isn’t like come on it’s weird also sure take more wild shapes away from players that’s fun for druids
Still not biblically accurate Angels, world be funny to have something like a throne in the CR 28 cathegory. Also, waiting for the tabaxy and this cat got to have more celestial influences (to beastlands) and some Arborea level Adventures in this paradyse of the explorers, (like a ton of celestial related traps, constructs and lore) Wonder if modrones ara now inmune to poison, that would be right.
@@Subject_Keter There are phoenixes in dnd, yes. They’re elementals. The giant eagle seems MUCH more closely tied to elemental air (given that it spoke auran and is a bird) than it is to other giant animals.
I like the idea of a test to PCs to see how kind they are. A deva pretends to be multiple people in need, and then appears in their natural form later with a gift based on how much the players did to help, or a divine curse if they took advantage of anyone
Giant Eagle getting taken out of the Wild Shape rotation really stings, ngl.
Wildshape flight seems to have been hella nerfed, not sure yet tho.
Eagle and Owl
Druids had the opportunity to get away from MM statblocks for wild shape during the UA, absolutely zero sympathy for them.
Depends. Talk with your DM. Use the old stats for that. We make our own rules here.
@ in my case I am the DM and I am not sure on what I'll do. Will have to wait and see what options remain before I make the choice. Much like many a DM I run things from all over the place too and I intend to keep using variations from 2014 and elsewhere as the DM for varying reasons so I'll personally probably allow it.
Not sure how the DM that runs the campaign I play in will go but I'm a cleric in that so it doesn't affect me so much anyway.
someone told me, Just because it says Lawful Good, that doesnt mean they're lawful nice. or Good doesnt always mean nice.
Sondheim: Nice is different from good.
It appears that Solars are now Seraphim given how they now have three pairs of wings. I love the new direction of celestials having wings that resemble things in the sky like the Sphinx of Wonder having galaxy wings in the new PHB. It's especially great for Aasimar inspiration, you could have one that uses their celestial revelation to sprout wings resembling a black hole.
The wings are a cool return from the old edition. I hope that means a return in Power too.
@nicolaszaffarano5420 I like how a lot of things have returned from older editions in this new updated version of 5e. The bloodied mechanic and minions from 4e are back, the Gold Dragon resembles an eastern dragon which is a return to its past design from 1e and 2e and Greyhawk is back as a setting in the DMG.
Todd's puns give me life.
Found Todd's alt account
They’re blessed
Fighting an angel would make me question “wait are we the baddies?”
Maybe we are
Most likely
Our uniforms got skulls on them.
Been playing a celestial warlock for the past 6 months and this is coming at the perfect time.
Ooh, that’s awesome. I’ve had quite a few of those at my tables. What’s your patron?
CELESTIAL WARLOCK PLAYERS UNITE!!!
Oh my god they gave actual lore to the Beastlands! It was such a neglected plane for so long because there was nothing to do there 😂.
I can't believe they made the sphinx faces even more catlike, over the editions it's just been a movement away from them being the unnerving but intimidating freaks they are in mythology. I wish creatures with human faces on non human bodies were more common in fiction, they're so cool and otherworldly when done right.
I agree, the human face is a big part of the appeal for both sphinxes and manticores !
@@julfenart Plus, a sphinx with a more feline face will look like just a bigger tressym.
I hope for a return of the Arborea exemplars.
So do I, but it won't happen sadly, there are very few new creatures in the book that aren't variants, the only new none variant Celestial being the animal lords. So every other new Celestial is a variant of existing Celestials, Sphinx of Wonders, Sphinx of Secrets, Sphinx of Valour (replaces Androsohinxl
), Sphinx of I forget what (replaces Gynosphinx), Iota Empyrean. Of ans it's been mentioned else where Sphinxes, Giant Eagles, Giant Owls, and Giant Elk are all Celestials now.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I love putting these videos on in the background to sleep to. Just chill people talking about DnD monsters and lore.
…so a sphinx could be a patron for a celestial warlock? That’s cool.
Giant animals that speak (e.g. giant eagle) now celestials from the Beast Lands. So no longer available for Wild Shape and Polymorph? Mmm...
Think they meant the animal lords specifically.
Hopefully there will be more beasts at higher CRs to compensate.
@@Akant0r9 no, they explicitly mean all talking animals like giant eagles, owls and elks.
I think you tuned out the clarification they made about some of them still being options for Wildshape
@@LaggyLoke as long as they are not "conscious" (i.e. that they don't have a language). At least, that's how I understood it.
We'll see soon...
1:43 I suspect the giant owls have something to do with Tolkien
I'm totally on board with giant eagles etc being celestial now.
The idea of a fiendish empyrean gave me goosebumps.
We've had giants, oozes, aberrations, monstrosities, fey, undead, dragons and now celestials. Just beasts, humanoids, fiends, plants, elementals and constructs to go. We're over half way now.
Boy, you're really stepping on my toes with this change to Empyreans. If it's just RAW that Empyreans can be Fiends or Celestials, my freaky Fallen Angels that I love including aren't going to be as surprising...
Eberron Rising From the Last War already had fallen Angel called the Radiant Idol.
And Empyreans aren't Angels, They are Titians, including funnily enough the the CR1 Medium sized Empyrean Iota, which means unlike Angels if they get enough worship, they become Gods. Also weird that could happen to Elemental Cataclysms, Colossus, Beast Lords, and Kraken.
This doesn't happen to Angels.
Guessing that is a Solar with an arrow of slaying! Nice!
It is lol, and it’s an instant death ability lol.
I'm about it @@Critbait99
I hope the hollyphant is in the book
Well, they seem to be mostly expanding on existing creatures from the old Monster Manual. But we had some new ones too like the Arch-Hag and Animal Lord, though those are high CR. Maybe there will be a Volume 2 Monster Manual later that upgrades creatures from older 5E adventures and Volo's Guide/Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes?
@@SwiftNimblefoot so far what I learned from review videos is that Sphinxes (there are 4 now, two renamed), Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, and Giant Elk are all Celestials now. Empyreans get little thought buddies Iota Empyreans. And we get Beast Lords (with three variants in one stat block). No other completely new Celestials, although there might be other creatures shifted to Celestial or maybe Angel/Coualt/Pegasus/Unicorn variants.
Personally simular to the Beast Lord I'd give the Deva single stat block variants Astral/Modanic/Movonic.
Lulu is continued of course :P
Please no.
That thing should never have been created.
I want to visit the beastlands and make friends with all the talking animals. My inner child wants talking animal friends, and is so happy that they're officially the angels they always were! 😆
And I happy that you're explaining the broadness of good and how being very old effects it!
6:05 This Empyrian Iota, as a "divine notion that has taken form" sounds like they're heavily borrowing from the spren of the Stormlight Archive.
6:37 These are no longer Dad jokes, they’re Todd Jokes.
The thumbnail is really promising, when thinking of Celestials I think of gods and angels. Judging by the thumbnail they have a hint of Pillar Men from Jojo's Bizarre adventure, stylish fashionable fitness gods.
I watched the Saturday morning cartoon in the 80s and I've owned dozens of books over the years and half as many video games but I never found any friends to play with irl. Still love the game and its universe though
Oh they got the memo about using celestials being pretty hard. Surprising news, but good news!
Hype. I hope that the variant of all the Aasimon(Angels) return and a power up for the Solar. And maybe Archon e co.
Yeah, we could finally have the Astral, Movanic and Monadic Devas back!
Archons were already added in Planescape, they could expand on them...
I can't believe they made the sphinx faces even more catlike, over the editions it's just been a movement away from them being the unnerving but intimidating freaks they are in mythology. I wish creatures with human faces on non human bodies were more common in fiction, they're so cool and otherworldly when done right.
@solarporpoise6756 There's the Shedu, and the Lammasu... hope they bring them back someday. And yes, sadly D&D turned Sphinxes into just winged Lions, it is something 4E already started... I wish they brought back the other variants, like the Criosphinx and Dracosphinx and Hieracosphinx!
I love the celestial category. Can't wait for my monster manual 🤓
And this is when we are glad that, for whatever reason, Zariel, and Malkizid, DON'T still have their bows, or dancing swords.
Plants! Please tell me plant type monsters are next?
Plants could use a new big bungus or two.
Planty bois, I wish they would do a monster like Diablo 3 "Wandering Wraith" aka big mean tree
Solar?
So-large I ain’t sticking around to fight it 🥁
~_~
Dude, that Solar is HAWT!!!
Ah yes the empyrean. Or as I like to call it “divine avatar template”
What about Empyrean Junior, the Enpyrean Iota, a lesser Avatar? Or maybe filler given there are no CR 1 Angels?
Lawful good doesn't mean lawful nice
Even Neutral Good doesn't always mean Neutral Nice, Batman being an example.
Zariel agrees
@@nyanko2077 Yeah, but she literally became an Archdevil. Y'know, Lawful Evil?
🎶Isn't it nice to know a lot? And a little bit not🎶
Now the big question is are there BIBLICALLY ACCURATE angels in there? Cause those things are terrifying looking.
“Do not be afraid”
That new solar is absolutely beautiful
4:56 "HONEY YOU MEAN-"
Woohoo! A Hellblazer fan!
They didnt mention anything about new new celestials but I hope there are new angels
They did actually. The Empyrean has a lower CR version too
The old book Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica had some nice additions to the Angel ranks.
Excited for the solar and animal lords😇🐺
Am I crazy, or did he say he was going to give us an example of an Empryean Iota and then not do that? Do you mean the manifestation of Hope can be a character? What exactly are you saying?
Can we have a sequel to Planescape detailing all of the outer planes down to the minute details?? Please???
If they wanted to add more Sphinxes, why not add the classic ones? Hieraco- and Criosphinxses have been in D&D since the 80ies... It is kinda disappointing that they all look like winged cats from... what is that kids' show, Elena of Avalor?
I guess both the Dark Urge and Aylin from Baldur’s Gate 3 are Empyreans!
"We wanted to nerf Moon druids so Giant Eagles are now Celestials."
Moon Druids are actually much better now, one less flying form isn't a big deal with how the animal form works now. If you have MotM, Quetzalcoatlus is still the best
I think the intent is not to try soft lock these moon druid shapes, also becuase it's specifically stated on the PHB that you can just grab non-beast statblocks with DM's permission.
It's like pretending that Owlbear is not a Wild Shape option, while I think most of the tables would just allow that
Do you know where it says that? I found the line about selecting "Beasts" from other sources with DM permission (right above the Beast Shapes table), and if what you say about non-beasts is true it should be shouted from the rooftops.
@noryb324 it says _elsewhere_ , why not the 2014 PHB? Why not some other homebrew material?
I think that, honesty, DMs should stop worrying about book constraints. Obviously the developers cannot say that you can wild shape into another creature other than beasts, but your DM can just rule that you can shape shift into a unicorn, why not
I think it would be cool if the Angels could look not just like pretty humans, but also pretty Dragonborn and pretty orcs and pretty other humanoid species.
Maybe they always do? I’m thinking of how Vorlons appeared to be an angelic form of the species of every person who saw them (all at the same time).
Pretty Dragonborn would expel money out of me
That line of thinking is what causes so much drama when a new monster manual comes out. It's your game world and the only person that would prevent that from being the case is a very unimaginative DM.
@@mitchminteer317 I just think it interesting how many people seem to need confirmation before allowing themselves to have fun.
"I want a psi dragonborn for my Spelljammer campaign!"
"You can make one you know?"
"I need someone e l s e to make it! Rawr!"
Like bro 😂
@@mitchminteer317 It's still be cool to have cool art for it.
Deva.
Classic.
Damn that art is dope.
The new c
The New Coatl art is gorgeous!!
it really sucks that they don't talk about The relationship it has to the player races. It's really difficult.
Great stuff
The fact that there are so many fallen angels and no redeemed devils, tells me the balance of the so called dnd universe is irrelevant.
It like chemical reactions, cant smash the ash together to remake it.
There are some redeemed devils & demons but it's rare.
Devils are beyond redemption, my good sir
Wait, what about Archons and Guardinals? Where do they fit?
Not on the book, a billion needless NPC stats, but no Celestial exemplars, huge, disappointing mistake by WotC.
@gyorgyor7765 I am angry.
I dont think there are that many less wild shapes
Respectfully, calling Winged Felidars from GGtR and Tressyms from SKT sphinxes now feels wrong. Reminds me of Gnolls being called human.
Cannon in all of my settings that creatures with true sight see biblically accurate angels instead of the humanoid ones. Ancient dragons don't enjoy talking to angels gives them head aches. Mortals with truesight will go risk going blind and take a certain amount of radiant damage when they see an angels true form.
Oh and obviously the beast lords are clearly celestial (beasts) because dual types. The Void knows why.
I do something similar, but I go even more out there with using the solar’s searing light ability as them temporarily dropping their physics forms and blinding you with their true selves
They do seem to actully cook with this book.
Not having giant eagles as a wild shape option seems an insane change to me. I mean not having owl bears as an option was already weird but this is just odd. I get that the DM can just say yeah it’s fine to do so and I’ll definitely be having my say on multiple creature types when I DM. But thus far I think the new edition has really mishandled some of these type changes, which is a shame as I really liked some of the other changes.
Owl bear have never been beasts. It is clearly not natural.
I don't like the fiend empyrean. Prefer evil celestials as an option, like the fallen idol. I think if we want a fiend analog I think it's ok to make a new thing.
You can still have Evil Celestial Empyreans (both Iota & Empyreans), the Fiend or Celestial thing is based on the alignment of the Empyrean's parents/creator, not it's own personal alignment. Unlike most other fiends/celestials Empyreans as Quasi Gods have true free will and can choose their alignment.
A Good God produces Celestial Empyreans and an Evil God produces Fiendish Empyreans, but that does not mean the Empyrean has to share the parents alignment.
Example maybe there is a evil Celestial Empyrean that was a bad guilty thought a good God purged from their mind while purfying itself.
Kind of disappointed there weren’t any “biblically accurate angels”. I was hoping their new epic level celestial would be a writhing non-Euclidean mass of eyes, wings, and searing light.
And that's what really annoys me about celestials.
Like you have fiends who are always evil, but what is their oposition? That of an absolute evil? A category of creatures that is good, neutral or even just evil and tagged as fiends sometimes.
I really hoped they wouldn't go this way again, like I really just wanted a good in a cosmic scale creatures, not another fey but made by gods -_-
Back to homebrewing 98% of angels I guess.
Angels are still Good, it's the Empyreans that are Neutral (and Neutral in the context of the MM just means they are free to pick any alignment they want, unlike most "outsiders" like Angels, Archon, Devils, Demons, Empyreans have true free will like Mortals do, because they are Quasi Gods (Titans).
Good, there is too much of a problem in DnD of associating celestial with "good"
I mean, they're literally supposed to be counterparts of the fiends. I get that there have been Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, and Fallen Celestials portrayed in pop-culture; but are you gonna tell me there's also a problem with associating fiends, like Demons and Devils, with Evil?
Why?
They "could" be bad celestials.. but i going to say anything that is "evil and will attack you for your cookies" comes from down below not from the sky.
@@Subject_Keter When it's Fiends, you usually ARE the cookies.
Even more of hit to Wildshape greeeeat
Ah yes Mt. Douchebag..I meant celestia.
You could have made the giant beasts all be beasts that act as templates and have rules for making plane touched variants that swap that creature type and not inadvertently add unnecessary gameplay or lore restrictions/retcons? This seems like a pointless thing to publish unless you're just using it to cut down wild shape/polymorph options? If it's something like that then don't say some nonsense about it making more sense than what was the prior design approach...
Tbf some of the giant animals were less animalistic than the Owlbear,
So they're not exactly wrong in saying they'd fit better in the Celestial category.
@BramLastname beyond ones published later in the pre 2024 run of books, which were already categorized as fey, if they had weird magic and even then not many. the only non-beast things some had were higher mental stats and languages which could just as easily be aspects of variant rules or templates dropped on beasts like I suggested.
Let's wait and see the beast video, they could have made alternatives for Druids or enhanced existing beasts
Thank you for your great dedictation for dungeons follower like me you mack rpg great again hi hi hi tack car of all of you your great guys and girls we love you FOR THÉ GREATER GOOD OF LESSER EVIL ON EARTH ❤
i like how they tell and don't show some of the statblocks that they are talking about in depth, its not like i wanted to see it
It’s almost like this is a promo for a product that they’re selling
The Giant Owl and Eagle are no longer beasts?! Why do you hate moon Druids so much? First I hear they only get 3 more beasts from CR 4-6 - one of them a f-ing squid. All I wanted was some variety and interesting beast. But now we LOST beasts?! If you'd just given us a bunch of Dire animals that would have been better than what we got.
You should have just stuck with the wild shape templates, but given more options. That's what I suggested back during the playtest. People didn't hate the idea of the template. They hated the lack of options. Which is the same problem they now have with high level CR.
And because people always bring up "no one plays at high level" that is a bad argument that leads to lazy game design. If no one plays at that level, then don't make it an option. Or put as much effort into all tiers of play.
I mean, you could just ignore the ruling and do whatever you want
There was no angels. Bad video
It definitely felt targeted to druids flight choices rather than sentiments which really stinks especially because they held off flying beasts till level 9 it seems like a needless nerf
Those aren't sphinxes, those are griffins. Sphinxes have humanoid heads and or faces, those are griffins. Cool tho. Not a sphinx.
Sphinx makes sense giant animals because of sapience is strange like a Raven isn’t like come on it’s weird also sure take more wild shapes away from players that’s fun for druids
Planatar looks horrible
Agreed, I think maybe the Planatar is trans, which is fine, but no excuse for the bad hair cut. You can have trans creatures that look cool.
@gyorgyor7765 trans? İt looks like made from play Dough
Still not biblically accurate Angels, world be funny to have something like a throne in the CR 28 cathegory.
Also, waiting for the tabaxy and this cat got to have more celestial influences (to beastlands) and some Arborea level Adventures in this paradyse of the explorers, (like a ton of celestial related traps, constructs and lore)
Wonder if modrones ara now inmune to poison, that would be right.
Ok, I know the giant eagle is probably gonna be a beast or a celestial, but PLEASE make it an elemental.
Why? Wouldn't fey be more appropriate? It would tie in with elves.
Giant Eagle I'm pretty sure was moved to Celestial (Which makes sense given it is Sapient and most likely will come from the beastlands)
Wouldnt a big elemental bird be like a phoenix? Or whatever is closest.
@@Subject_Keter There are phoenixes in dnd, yes. They’re elementals. The giant eagle seems MUCH more closely tied to elemental air (given that it spoke auran and is a bird) than it is to other giant animals.
@@HallowedKeeper_ They did imply that in the video, ya. I just don’t like it.
Why would you remover druid wildshape options? Just put both tags celestial and beast??? like wtf that's just useless bureaucratic nonsense
So the giant beasts being taken from moon druids is actually starting to concern me.
Why? They said it's only the hyper-inteligent ones,
Which means most are still available.
They did say that the vast majority of them are still beasts thought
The Sapient ones were removed, which is I think 3, the rest are still beasts