D&D 5E D&D Beyond: Monsters of the Multiverse Will Not Replace Existing Monsters

D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.

While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.

While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why not? Why would I want to use old, incorrect stat blocks instead of the new ones?

They aren't "incorrect". There are no incorrect monsters, just variants.

 

[HammerMan]

They aren't "incorrect". There are no incorrect monsters, just variants.

incorrect is what ever the table decides. and if I can ever go back to playing in person and walk up to a table at a Con or Gaming store I will now need to ask more quastions about the edition... "what style of monsters" will be added to "do you use tasha's updates" and "do you use new sub races from teh gift set" then there will be a time when someone comes to one of MY tables at a store or con and not like the answers I give... edition war.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

incorrect is what ever the table decides. and if I can ever go back to playing in person and walk up to a table at a Con or Gaming store I will now need to ask more quastions about the edition... "what style of monsters" will be added to "do you use tasha's updates" and "do you use new sub races from teh gift set" then there will be a time when someone comes to one of MY tables at a store or con and not like the answers I give... edition war.

Walk up to my table and the monster's stats are whatever the DM says they are. And generally the players don't get to see them - it's not their business to know.

 

[HammerMan]

Walk up to my table and the monster's stats are whatever the DM says they are. And generally the players don't get to see them - it's not their business to know.

I'm sorry. You don't think the rules on how player options and monster abilities interact is something that is a Player's business? I don't think I would like such an adversarial answer at all... the fact that the question itself bothers you though shows i am right... this is going to lead to MORE trouble not less.

this is why system overhauls need to come in the form of edition change... "We play 5e" and "We play 6e" may cause edition wars but atleast it is straight forward.

 

[CleverNickName]

Eh. If my players get offended by what they see in my monster stat blocks, it's their own fault for peeking.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "People who love sausage and respect the monster stats should never watch either one being made."

 

[HammerMan]

Eh. If my players get offended by what they see in my monster stat blocks, it's their own fault for peeking.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "People who love sausage and respect the monster stats should never watch either one being made."

except it ISn'T just 'how they are made' spell abilities being pulled out will effect magic resistance and counterspell. It is a change to the way the game flow. (not to mention if what they say is true it will make CRs work better the new way) some people may not want to play in a new way game and some may not want to play in an old way game... that is a level of transparencies that I think is the bare minimum.

 

[J.Quondam]

I'm sorry. You don't think the rules on how player options and monster abilities interact is something that is a Player's business?

This is a fair point. As a player, I'd definitely want to understand, for example, the intersection of my counterspell with NPC magical abilities. There do appear to be some design concerns with respect to certain changes that really do impact how players would approach a game, and that sort of thing should be transparent.

But for NPC abilities in general, i personally don't consider it players' concern. The DM should mostly be a black box to whatever degree the table is comfortable with.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

there is already changes in race, and they put out survays about class changes months ago. They may not call it an edition change but it will be more than the essentials 4e, and most likely at least on par with 3e/3.5 even if it isn't called such.

None of which even approaches new edition territory.

my biggest fear is they will hold back needed changes to pay lip service to "still 5e"

Nothing needs to change that would make it not 5e. Your "needed changes" are just things you don't prefer.

essentials didn't take away any of the 4e PHB you would do better to bring up errata of powers. the essential fighter was just a new class with a confusing name... it wasn't even a little like a replacement.

Don't tell me what I'd be better off doing.

The Essentials classes did not include a class named Fighter, it had two classes whose names weren't the least bit confusing. Slayer and Knight are not confusing.

Also I didn't say that essentials took anything away, so what on Earth are you even replying to?

so in your mind race and class are not rules?

What part of "rules incompatibility" is confusing you?

Why not? Why would I want to use old, incorrect stat blocks instead of the new ones?

The old stat blocks aren't incorrect.

yes and just like 3e/3.5 this will lead to the quastion at every table "are we useing new or old rules?" and then it will lead to "I prefer (old/new)" and as such it will be a mid edition edition war waiting to happen.

This is one of the silliest statements I've ever seen on these forums. It literally isn't even new vs old. You can have a Harengon and a PHB Wood Elf and a MMoTM Bugbear, some of whom use PHB subclasses with no variants and some of whom use Tasha's subclasses with variant rules turned on, all at the same table.

The only potential contradiction is in errata, which has been the case for several years.

 

[CleverNickName]

except it ISn'T just 'how they are made' spell abilities being pulled out will effect magic resistance and counterspell. It is a change to the way the game flow. (not to mention if what they say is true it will make CRs work better the new way) some people may not want to play in a new way game and some may not want to play in an old way game... that is a level of transparencies that I think is the bare minimum.

Heh. If my players are that concerned about magic resistance and counterspell, they'd faint if they saw how I calculate hit points and armor class.

(I'm kidding, mostly. The point I'm trying to make is that trying to reverse-engineer my monsters and NPCs will be an exercise in futility. And I like it that way. I want to keep my players guessing, even after we've been playing for decades. I never want to hear them say "oh it's just a bodak, here's what we do...")

 

[doctorbadwolf]

incorrect is what ever the table decides. and if I can ever go back to playing in person and walk up to a table at a Con or Gaming store I will now need to ask more quastions about the edition... "what style of monsters" will be added to "do you use tasha's updates" and "do you use new sub races from teh gift set" then there will be a time when someone comes to one of MY tables at a store or con and not like the answers I give... edition war.

Do you see "edition wars" happening right now between "PHB+1" tables and "anything official" tables? Because the hypothetical you're so worried about isn't distinct from that. It's literally just "do you allow all the books, or only a curated list, and if a curated list, which sources are allowed?" WHich has been the needed conversation since the first supplement came out.