D&D 5E Zooming In On Monsters of the Multiverse [UPDATED!]

Earlier, WotC announced Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse, a new D&D compilation of monster material from previous products updated to a new format. These screen grabs are as good as I could get them. They're not terribly clear, but you can make more out than in the original images.

The screenshots show the original entry in Volo's Guide to Monsters next to the new entry in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse.

"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)

The online D&D Celebration event, which has been running all weekend, comes to a close with The Future of D&D, a panel featuring WotC's Ray Winninger, Liz Schuh, Chris Perkins, and Jeremy Crawford, hosted by Elle Osili-Wood. D&D is exploring the multiverse Revisiting classic settings. 1st of...

www.enworld.org

---

UPDATE -- a cleaned up version of the War Priest has appeared on imgur.

 

[Bolares]

I like the changes, but I think they need to be clear when it's a spell or not. Because if you change most spells names and make them actions, without saying clearly that they are spells, counterspell will be severely nerfed.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the changes, but I think they need to be clear when it's a spell or not. Because if you change most spells names and make them actions, without saying clearly that they are spells, counterspell will be severely nerfed.

This...
actually every power being called differently and being slightly differently was a pita.
Knowing that an npc casts fireball was enough.
That was my first thought when I read Kelek in dragon+
Why didn't they just say:
Reaction: Kelek casts shield (level 1)
Action: Kelek casts fireball (lvl 5) recharge 4 - 6?

Edit: spelling out the spell in abbreviated form does not hurt though and focusses the attention to the most important spells to make the combat fun. Also as others said above/or below: encountering spellcasters with their full reserve of spell slots is not really balanced.

 

[duneguy]

From looking at the stat blocks, it doesn't look quite accurate that the spellcasting action only contains utility spells, or even that it's mostly utility spells. The war priest has flame strike, guardians of faith, hold person, and banishment as spells. Only one or two signature spells have been action-ified. My guess is, the lich, mage, and so on will have plenty of attack spells to be counterspelled and seized from spellbooks.

 

[Bolares]

This...
actually every power being called differently and being slightly differently was a pita.
Knowing that an npc casts fireball was enough.
That was my first thought when I read Kelek in dragon+
Why didn't they just say:
Reaction: Kelek casts shield (level 1)
Action: Kelek casts fireball (lvl 5) recharge 4 - 6?

They should use the new template, where you don't need to search the PHB for the description of the spell. But I think they should use a marker in the action to specify that it is a spell. Something like "-Cacophony (spell)"

 

[Neonchameleon]

So why not list it under spellcasting?
Why not make it:

Cacophony(recharge 4-6):
... casts thunderwave at level x and does...

Because that way I need to stop the combat, reach for the PHB, flip through to the Thunderwave page, look that, read a spell that's literally about twice as long while doing exactly the same thing, plug in some math for the level, and then cast the spell.

Putting the commonly used spells in to the statblocks saves time at the table - and saves it at the critical moment when something time sensitive is happening.

The biggest issue for me is that it can be done just as easily without alienating people, yet they choose not to.

Which is easier for the DM:
-A list of 1/day spells where you have to jot down the name of each spell used so far, or
-The MM standard list of spells known and slots per level where you just have to jot down numbers?

I can‘t see how “Level 2: -1” is harder on the DM than “used mirror image”.

Because that way you need to mess around with spell levels. Also I don't know if you noticed, but they've seriously cut back the number of spells known through the new method. So, not counting Cantrips, the bard in the VGtM example knows five first level spells and two second. The bard in the second knows three spells plus Cacophony. That's literally half the amount you need to look up.

(For the record the NPC Bard has not only lost Song of Rest but Healing Word - and has gained multiattack.

And for spells written up as an attack, all you need to do is have (2nd-level) after the spell name.

But they've actually made it easier with a recharge mechanic. They're doing things differently.

That gets all the same ease of use functionality

It doesn't.

while allowing you to have the NPC upcast or take advantage of any game rules that might relate to spell slots and spellcasting

In other words it keeps even more of what is 99% of the time almost pointless makework on the DM's side.

The reason people give for not liking NPCs to use PC rules is that it makes it harder to DM.

Absolutely.

But if there is a solution that makes it easier on the DM while maintaining PC / NPC approximation (which some people very much want), isn‘t it preferable to make that the solution of choice? Then everyone gets what they want.

But what you are offering tries to keep the bloated spell lists and options that just take up time and give most DMs pointless makework. No it isn't preferable because it doesn't do the job.

NPCs and PCs will not and can not be run equally until and unless each NPC gets a player who can give them their full attention.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This...
actually every power being called differently and being slightly differently was a pita.
Knowing that an npc casts fireball was enough.
That was my first thought when I read Kelek in dragon+
Why didn't they just say:
Reaction: Kelek casts shield (level 1)
Action: Kelek casts fireball (lvl 5) recharge 4 - 6?

Because not everyone has a photographic memory, and the people it is most important to help are new DMs. Veterans have the experience to be able to cope - but for a new DM knowing that the NPC casts fireball isn't enough and they have to look it up. They almost certainly need to look up Thunderwave or any of the literal dozens of other spells. They certainly can't tweak most spells in their heads.

So if Fireball is something the NPC commonly casts in combat you can not and should not assume that the DM has Fireball memorised and certainly not spells more obscure than Fireball.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They should use the new template, where you don't need to search the PHB for the description of the spell. But I think they should use a marker in the action to specify that it is a spell. Something like "-Cacophony (spell)"

It is just thunderwave. By all means, call the action cacophony and write details down... But add: thunderwave lvl 1

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Because not everyone has a photographic memory, and the people it is most important to help are new DMs.

I don't object writing it down.

 

[aco175]

I do not see any psionics listed. I know half love it and half hate it, but not sure what that means for Dark Sun or such.

I do think that adding spell description to the stat block makes sense. Typically monster casters have only a few rounds before they die, so adding a recharge spell and a few daily spells makes sense.

 

[Remathilis]

So I have a few concerns with this new system.

Under the current rules, you have an overt idea of the class approximation the class is going for: IE Priest is a 6th level cleric, Mage is a 9th level wizard. This gave the DM method of upping or lowering caster NPCs by changing caster level. It also provided a spell list and caster stat. Looking at the new bard, I don't know what his approximate PC level is: what spells should I look at to up or lower him. Can I just add a bunch of utility magic willy nilly? Is Mass Heal 1/day op?

What if I want to reflect a different type of caster using the NPC stat block? Before, if I wanted a Droid that worshipped Sacred Fire I could pick the Druid stat block and sticky note a new spell list. Now, it looks like I'd have to rebuild the block from scratch to change his attacks or utility magic.

This is doubly painful if you had stat block NPCs as party members. It makes them very one tick ponies and loses a lot of flexibility. No more asking the war priest ally to memorize raise dead or restoration I guess...

Now granted, the new system is easier to read and I've been adding spell attacks to stat blocks for a while, but this feels like I'm losing the ability to reverse engineer the stat blocks for customizing in the fly. Which is a big loss for me as someone who tried to keep consistent with WotCs design paradigm. This feels like NPC stat blocks are being designed with combat function as a primary design goal rather than representing what the NPC's overall power and abilities are.