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.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

where I agree I make up stuff (sometimes on the fly I might add*) and that black box is helpful, there are atleast somethings (and this change i fele is one) that need to be talked about.

*I have had to make whole state blocks up pulled from down under as players went somewhere I wasn't expecting.

 

[HammerMan]

None of which even approaches new edition territory.

sure it does... weather it passes that line or not we can argue all day, but it atleast approaches that line.

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

are you lock? no one can tell you what you can't do? Come on this is a discussion don't get so uptight.

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?

well then we agree... it is MORE then the essentials change (that some call a .5 edition change)

What part of "rules incompatibility" is confusing you?

the part where new race/subrace concepts (Do all dwarves have dwarven traits?) and new monster spell changes (Can this be counter spelled?) plus what ever they do to classes (none of us know yet) don't count in your book.

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.

and I can with a bit of work have a 2e wizard a 4e warlord or fighter and a 3e duskblade all at my 5e table... doesn't mean it would be common easy or natural.

 

[HammerMan]

Do you see "edition wars" happening right now between "PHB+1" tables and "anything official" tables?

a little but not much.

Because the hypothetical you're so worried about isn't distinct from that.

except that PHB+1 is very clear on what rules monster follow for counterspell and magic resistance. the "anything official" is very clear about if the duragar count as dwarf for dwarf traits (or shadar kia count as elf for elf traits) and even a "Here is the list of books I allow and don't allow some 3party" are all things that have been true since I started and bought my first role-aids book (archmages)

however changing race and changing monsters is already makeing changes to the system... and we KNOW they are atleast considering classes.

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.

excpet this isn't "Can I play a barbarian from complete book of barbarians" this is "We know we will fight monsters with spells sooner or later, what set of rules are you useing for it"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Excpet this isn't "Can I play a barbarian from complete book of barbarians" this is "We know we will fight monsters with spells sooner or later, what set of rules are you useing for it"

I can see why that concerns you. And you have my sympathy. I am still a bit divided.
I can also see problems when you see a firball being cast and then ask to counterspell it, only to be told, that it was no spell. So yes, this needs to be adressed before play. But overall I think it is still worth testing. And it is important to report problems that arise during play, so maybe for 5.5 they might adept the levelup solution.

 

[HammerMan]

I can see why that concerns you. And you have my sympathy. I am still a bit divided.
I can also see problems when you see a firball being cast and then ask to counterspell it, only to be told, that it was no spell. So yes, this needs to be adressed before play. But overall I think it is still worth testing. And it is important to report problems that arise during play, so maybe for 5.5 they might adept the levelup solution.

first, I am not THAT concerned with the change itself, just that it is a change.
TBH me and my friends house rule so much that we will barely notice in our games... my worry is discussion here, and at shops/cons(if I ever get to leave my house again)

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

For people mentioning PHB+1, the main group that was made for, Adventurers League, no longer uses it. And some of my final decision will be based on what they do with the changes because AL play is more likely for me than a private group. But they will have to decide something on this. Maybe an AL 2.0 that has it's first season in 2024 with the updated core books. Seeing what their official decision is on this book being legal or not, or when it will become legal, for AL play will say a lot.

 

[Malmuria]

As a player I would be like, what the crap? Why can‘t I cast three superior cantrips per round and fireball all day long?

The phb tells us that sorcerers "carry a raw, uncontrolled magic within them, a chaotic storm that manifests in unexpected ways," and that "the appearance of sorcerous powers is wildly unpredictable."

Either from a fiction or a game standpoint, I don't see how that description is best expressed by all sorcerers in the multiverse knowing the same 20-30 cantrips.

 

[pukunui]

No idea what they'd put into a revised DMG or if it's even needed compared to the possibilities of the other two books.

I am expecting they’ll remove and/or replace the madness rules, based on what they’ve done with madness in the latest ToA errata.

I imagine they’ll also revise/rebalance some of the magic items.

They might also revise the XP encounter budgeting and the “make your own monster” guidelines.

They might do something with the planes and those optional rules that go with them.

 

[darjr]

I think they’ll also have a large public playtest effort as well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

sure it does... weather it passes that line or not we can argue all day, but it atleast approaches that line.

No, it doesn't.

are you lock? no one can tell you what you can't do? Come on this is a discussion don't get so uptight.

Your behavior is disrespectful, and rude. If you continue to behave in this way toward me, there will be no further discussion between us.

well then we agree... it is MORE then the essentials change (that some call a .5 edition change)

That is not remotely what I said. It is both obnoxious, and disrespectful, to pull the juvenile "ah so you agree with this thing that is clearly the opposite of your point" attempted gotcha BS.

the part where new race/subrace concepts (Do all dwarves have dwarven traits?) and new monster spell changes (Can this be counter spelled?) plus what ever they do to classes (none of us know yet) don't count in your book.

New options don't make a new edition. They're just new options. They aren't remotely incompatible. There is absolutely no issue using them with the PHB options. No effort whatsoever is required to do so. They are not distinct from the new options in every single supplement for 5e that has come out already.

and I can with a bit of work have a 2e wizard a 4e warlord or fighter and a 3e duskblade all at my 5e table... doesn't mean it would be common easy or natural.

If by "a bit of work" you mean fully converting whole classes between editions wherein the underlying math isn't even the same, then it is extremely strange that you're complaining about the absolute lack of any effort whatsoever required to use a PHB Battlemaster who is a MMoTM Bugbear, Tasha's Ranger who is a PHB Wood Elf, and a Tasha's Bladesinger Harengon, in the same party. Literally nothing at all needs to change, no translation is required, they all work within exactly the same general rules, use the same resource frameworks, the same underlying math, and all the words in the rulestext in the books they come from mean the same things.

You are effectively calling SCAG, Volo's, Xanathar's, MToF, and Tasha's, each a new edition, not to mention the collected errata and reprinted PHB that takes said errata into account.

a little but not much.

except that PHB+1 is very clear on what rules monster follow for counterspell and magic resistance. the "anything official" is very clear about if the duragar count as dwarf for dwarf traits (or shadar kia count as elf for elf traits) and even a "Here is the list of books I allow and don't allow some 3party" are all things that have been true since I started and bought my first role-aids book (archmages)

Duergar and Shadar-kai explicitly count as their parent race in both the original writeup and the optional variant writeup. There is absolutely no room for confusion on that. There is no "are we using these rules or these rules", here, outside of your own invented hypothetical. Your character has the traits listed in the writeups for the options you chose during character creation. It's very simple.

however changing race and changing monsters is already makeing changes to the system..

So is literally any errata. By the logic you've presented, there are already about a dozen edition changes within 5e already. Hell, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide presented variant Tieflings. All of a sudden you don't just know if a Tiefling character has +2 Charisma, or what spells they have, without asking if they used SCAG to make the character, and if so which variant options they used. Is SCAG a new edition?

excpet this isn't "Can I play a barbarian from complete book of barbarians" this is "We know we will fight monsters with spells sooner or later, what set of rules are you useing for it"

No, it isn't. It is literally not that, at all. There isn't a different set of rules, there are new variant stat blocks. This is not actually a new type of thing within this edition of the game. This is like arguing that if players had disliked the stat block format in the MM, and they changed how they formatted monsters in Volo's, folks then claimed that Volo's was a new edition of the game. It's patently absurd.