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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I actually expect the DMG to change the most, since it is full of advice, tables, suggestions, optional rules that have been improved on since publication, etc.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I know more home tables that use the PHB+1 rules or a close variant, than I know people who play in AL.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

IMO the spells that aren't spells thing is the only actual deviation that has occured in the entire span of the edition, and since it's part of a set of optional variant stat blocks, I don't really understand why it's a problem, beyond "I'm disappointing because I want to use the new stat blocks but i don't like this aspect of them".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

IMO the spells that aren't spells thing is the only actual deviation that has occured in the entire span of the edition, and since it's part of a set of optional variant stat blocks, I don't really understand why it's a problem, beyond "I'm disappointing because I want to use the new stat blocks but i don't like this aspect of them".

It is a potential problem because it is something that might seem illogical to players and prone to debate.

Of it walks like a duck and quaks like duck it is probably a duck. Or it is not. That could turn into potential debate. As I said: you can rationalize it as something like the sorcerer's subtle spell. Which is uncounterable because you can't perceive it being cast.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is a potential problem because it is something that might seem illogical to players and prone to debate.

Of it walks like a duck and quaks like duck it is probably a duck. Or it is not. That could turn into potential debate. As I said: you can rationalize it as something like the sorcerer's subtle spell. Which is uncounterable because you can't perceive it being cast.

Sure. I think those abilities should be stated in the statblock to be spells, or a new general rule that if you make a spell attack you are casting a spell, but I'm not really interested in arguing about whether it's good design. I'm discussing whether it is indicative of an edition change, as some folks have come to take for granted in spite of a lack of any actual evidence.

 

[SkidAce]

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

I dont think they will be "incorrect", just...different? As in improved in their opinion maybe.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For people worried about the "new spell-like abilities" causing so much confusion. I have an honest question.

Have you had this problem with the Death Knight's Hellfire Orb? It is a magical ball of fire that has a range of 120 ft, explodes into a 20 ft radius for a dex save, and does 10d6 fire and 10d6 necrotic damage. It is almost a fireball, but it isn't a spell that the players have access to. And, since it isn't explicitly a spell, it has the same "issue" as these new abilities.

Or the Drow Priestess's Summon Demons.

Or the Cloaker's Phantasms that are almost Mirror Image

Or the Darkmantle's Darkness Aura that is almost the Darkness spell

Or the Ice Devil's Wall of Ice.

The multiple invisiblity casting creatures like Imps and Pixies. The multiple charming creatures, like Vampires and Succubi,

Clay Golem Haste? Stone Golem Slow? Treant Animate Trees?

There are A LOT of abilities that are clearly magical, clearly a lot like spells, and that aren't technically spells in the Monster Manual. So, how is this different? How does this present a new, unique, issue?

 

[J.Quondam]

For people worried about the "new spell-like abilities" causing so much confusion. I have an honest question.

Have you had this problem with the Death Knight's Hellfire Orb? It is a magical ball of fire that has a range of 120 ft, explodes into a 20 ft radius for a dex save, and does 10d6 fire and 10d6 necrotic damage. It is almost a fireball, but it isn't a spell that the players have access to. And, since it isn't explicitly a spell, it has the same "issue" as these new abilities.

Or the Drow Priestess's Summon Demons.

Or the Cloaker's Phantasms that are almost Mirror Image

Or the Darkmantle's Darkness Aura that is almost the Darkness spell

Or the Ice Devil's Wall of Ice.

The multiple invisiblity casting creatures like Imps and Pixies. The multiple charming creatures, like Vampires and Succubi,

Clay Golem Haste? Stone Golem Slow? Treant Animate Trees?

There are A LOT of abilities that are clearly magical, clearly a lot like spells, and that aren't technically spells in the Monster Manual. So, how is this different? How does this present a new, unique, issue?

I think the concern is that these types of abilities are attached to statblocks of NPCs that are supposed to be actual "wizards" or "clerics" or whatever. That is to say, they're close to certain PC classes in concept, so when their NPC abilities deviate significantly from the PC abilities of similar classes, it raises questions.

 

[MNblockhead]

See? That sounds like a pain in the butt to me. I mean, obviously, I'll suck it up, but I don't really like the idea of having two stat-blocks for every monster, with one improved on the other.

Yeah, they need to enable more filters to the D&D Beyond search function and allow you safe your preferred default search-filter preferences. So often I want to just look up a rule but it returns term hits on EVERYTHING, even books I don't own.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, they need to enable more filters to the D&D Beyond search function and allow you safe your preferred default search-filter preferences. So often I want to just look up a rule but it returns term hits on EVERYTHING, even books I don't own.

A filter for "books I own" would be great for users, but then how would you find out that the perfect monster for your encounter could be yours for the low, low price of $1.99?