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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

HammerMan

Legend
I think that you may end up dissapointed with regard to this
yes and I will not be the only one... if WotC (as I am repeatedly told in this and similar threads) have a goal of not splitting the fan base, then that is a problem and this is just a new fracture in the edition war.
Wait, we do? How? From what source? Did Crawford or Perkins or someone go on twitter while I was napping today and announce that the optional variants in Tasha's will be in the anniversary PHB, and won't be optional anymore?

Come on. We literally don't "know" that the PHB will even be revised beyond the normal errata revisions in successive printings. We are all basically assuming it will be, but we absolutely inarguably do not know it.
okay this seems disingenuous. Are you telling me you believe that the new PHB they are working on, and the new race rules we have seen and the surveys about class modifications are unrelated?
Eh, kinda. We know that new race options aren't likely to be setting specific unless they're part of a setting book. Whether they will make Dark Sun races look like MoTM races vs having flavorfull setting specific features, we won't know until they print a pre-existing setting with setting specific takes on races.

Call it whatever you want, in 2025 there will be D&D books being published wherein one can play with the newest of brand new options from the never before published settings they're working on now, and the options from the 2014 PHB, and (barring errata issues because that PHB has a decent amount of errata) you won't have to convert or adjust any mechanics, math, or system rules, to do it.
That sounds like what I said in the last thread on this... standing in the middle of the road, and getting hit by cars going both ways.
I often enjoy engaging with your thoughts in a thread, and for that reason I really wish you'd consider not harping on it anymore, then. None of us can convince you, you aren't going to convince us, why keep bringing it up in every thread that has anything to do with new books?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have a serious question that YOU just framed perfectly. If I somehow framed my discussion in the ultimate argument of logic, would it change your mind? What would it take to make you step back and look at things from a different POV?

Now I assume me, you Micha all SHOULD have the same answer here... "Yeah, just nobody has convinced me yet." the problem is, we have been for days going all around on this and none of us have changed our minds... so does that just mean we are so dug in this is it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

HammerMan

Legend
5e was the perfekt game for me and I can still see a lot of room for improvement.
Right now I see changes/additions/options for
Races
Classes
Spells
Downtime activities
And I currently like more than I don't.
we already can guess race and class are being changed (the amount is WAY up to debate)
spells at some level can be guaranteed not just because of the surveys but because I can't for the life of me imagine NOT messing with some spells (again the amount of change is up to debate)
You bring up Sowntime activities, and I have to say the strixhaven stuff could really help modify that.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Where is my logic flawed?

A few places.

They indicated in Tasha's that all the information in that book was optional. Then, only a couple months after release, they announced in UA that they were moving forward with the Tasha's race changes as the standard,

Note: Tasha's rules ARE optional, for the Player's Handbook and Volo's guide and most of the material that came BEFORE Tasha's. I say most, because Tasha's floating ability scores actually do not apply to humans, because they already had floating ability scores.

NEW races were using floating ability scores, yes, but Tasha's was never promised to be optional for races designed with floating ability scores, it was promised to be optional for races previously designed with static ability scores. And it is, and still will be. Tasha's was also never a promise that new designs would never be made.

and have continued with that, cumulating in 2024 with the reprinted core books that will also follow the new style and rules. Two months is not enough time for them to have gotten any usable feedback, so it seems clear to me that they intended to use the Tasha's race changes as standard from the start, which makes their claims that it was optional...dubious.

Yes it is. If I get a million survey results showing that people love something, but it has only been a week do I just assume my data is invalid, because a week isn't enough time to get real results? No. You look at the quantity of data, not the time period, unless you are measuring something over time.

You are just assuming that they couldn't possibly have gotten enough data to disprove you. Or, say, that they might have had an Alpha tester group who was working on this BEFORE Tashas, and so the two months after Tasha's released isn't the actual timeline, but perhaps it was as far back as six months before Tasha's. Is 8 months enough time for you to believe them? And you can't tell me that they didn't have an alpha tester pool working on this idea for months before it became public, because you don't have access to the company's internal documents.

regardless of why they decided to enact these changes (and you may be right about them wanting to do them for some time, it doesn't really matter anymore), portraying them as optional when they didn't intend them to be is disingenuous. Most of the race and monsters outside core officially follow that design now, and nearly all the rest will follow in a couple years.

As variants. It has already been stated that if you, for example, own Volo's on D&D Beyond or Fantasy Grounds and you buy Monster's of the Multiverse that your old material is not rewritten and destroyed, but is an option for you to use. It is, to coin a phrase, OPTIONAL. Just because an official option exists that you can choose to use, in a new book, doesn't mean it isn't an option. This would be like arguing that the ONLY elves that exist are Shadar-Kai, Sea Elves and Eladrin, because they were the last printed options. Or that you can't play a PHB beastmaster Ranger because Tasha's offered alternative class features and Fizban's released the drakewarden. It is nonsensical.

And this book is 100% old material modified to the new designs. First time they're ever published a book with no new content. It would be financially idiotic to replace all the old stuff in DDB with the new stuff, because there would literally be no reason to buy the book. Eventually, after the old books go out of print and the new style has been around for a while, I expect people will get used to it, and the company can pretend like its always been this way. Maybe by 2024.

Again, where is my logic flawed?

Dolphin Delighter is new. So, there is some new content. Probably is more than just that.

And, you know that the Orc statblock was published like... three times right? And two of them were altered from the first. So, this isn't the second new orc we are getting, but the FOURTH.

But, mostly, your logic is flawed because you are starting from the premise that they lied. You have chosen to view the world such that you have been wronged, because WoTC didn't do what you expected, and so you are taking the things we know, and extropalting them beyond their limits, making baseless assumptions, all to prove a foregone conclusion. You will never take the evidence and wonder if it shows a different outcome, because you don't want a different outcome, you want to conclude that WoTC lied. That is where your logic is flawed.

I have an answer for that, but you won't buy it and ultimately it doesn't matter. They can do what they want, and I don't need any more stuff from them anymore.

Case in point. Someone has presented evidence that challenges your conclusion. You refuse to consider it, because it challenges your conclusion, therefore it must be wrong.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

you got the problem right away though... how common the problem is.

How common the DESIGN is isn't really a problem though. Because it isn't an inherently problematic design. Your worst case scenario is that two DMs might rule differently. And if that is a problematic design, then we have far bigger problems than this book.

I have over the years know a few (normally problem)players who would complain at the drop of a hat for a single encounter or two that didn't fit what they wanted... but every occurrance adds up. I am pretty sure (and a 3.5 rouge in a campaign where 9/10 of the enemies are immune to sneak attack comes to mind) over time even the most level headed player will feel siggnled out.

This is not a design problem. Nothing in any book can do anything about this. If you are complaining about the new monster write-ups because you know people who will complain because not every encounter fit their expectations... then no DnD book will ever be good enough or without problems.

a new format that is the assumed defualt going forward.

The assumed default for the options that use it.

Seriously, this is like talking to people about CGI. Yes, films that use CGI are going to contain CGI, and more new films will have CGI instead of hand-drawn animation. This doesn't mean hand-drawn doesn't exist. It doesn't mean no new hand-drawn movies will be made, and just because it is new doesn't mean it is bad.

In fact, to take a rather firm stance, I LOVE the new monster statblocks. Why? Because I don't need to either

A) Make notecards detailing the spell effects of each of the monsters spells
B) Interrupt the flow of the game by pulling out my PHB and looking up and reading the spells at the tables.

The "issue" of whether or not it is a spell that can be counter-spelled is barely on the horizon to me compared to these wonderful benefits right in front of me. And, since these are so clearly just spells with a few minor tweaks, then reverse engineering them is easy.
 

HammerMan

Legend
How common the DESIGN is isn't really a problem though. Because it isn't an inherently problematic design. Your worst case scenario is that two DMs might rule differently. And if that is a problematic design, then we have far bigger problems than this book.
no just not happening. I am sick of my problem being framed as "any DM can do anything"

right now on these boards you can search a dozen conversations and find atleast half of them come down to "Outside of DM ruleing here is what the defualt is" when you change the defualt you change that conversation.

As I have said (many times and it always gets brushed away) my table with my friends use a ton of house rules. However I would not expect if I sat down at a gaming store with 5 acquaintances/strangers that they know any of my house rules. I would expect we have a baseline to discus the game.

This is not a design problem. Nothing in any book can do anything about this. If you are complaining about the new monster write-ups because you know people who will complain because not every encounter fit their expectations... then no DnD book will ever be good enough or without problems.
and with this you moved from "Hey it's a problem that already could come up every now and then," to "If the problem comes up every game who cares" notice the HUGE difference.
The assumed default for the options that use it.
I don't understand this sentence. if it is the assumed default then (by defualt) it is the baseline.
Seriously, this is like talking to people about CGI. Yes, films that use CGI are going to contain CGI, and more new films will have CGI instead of hand-drawn animation. This doesn't mean hand-drawn doesn't exist. It doesn't mean no new hand-drawn movies will be made, and just because it is new doesn't mean it is bad.
see here is the problem. WotC isn't Disney or Pixar (as much as they are owned by they are not even Hasbro).
if (as I have been repeatedly told) they have very limited production ability, then it isn't "Most will use CGI but some will be hand drawn" it is "Going forward we will be useing CGI but feel free to hand draw your own"

1) I am not hand drawing my own... if I was I would be working on my 4e retroclone with update sensibilities
2) I am not even dislikeing the CGI... my complaint isn't "I don't like the new direction" my complaint is "Pick a lane, update or don't" (and my vote is update.... bring on 6e, fix all the flaws we have found over the last 10ish years and produce form teh ground up D&D that works going forward)

In fact, to take a rather firm stance, I LOVE the new monster statblocks. Why? Because I don't need to either
me too. I love the idea tbh. It is a step in the right direction. I would actually be fine if 5.5/6/anniversary edition just did away with counterspell and made all monsters like 4e did.

You have missunderstood my problme. I don't dislike the direction... I want clearer labels.

A) Make notecards detailing the spell effects of each of the monsters spells
B) Interrupt the flow of the game by pulling out my PHB and looking up and reading the spells at the tables.

The "issue" of whether or not it is a spell that can be counter-spelled is barely on the horizon to me compared to these wonderful benefits right in front of me. And, since these are so clearly just spells with a few minor tweaks, then reverse engineering them is easy.
I was 100% on your side of this... until people insisted that the whitchlight abilities were not counterspell able then the battle lines started and I just want them to lable new as new.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
yes and I will not be the only one... if WotC (as I am repeatedly told in this and similar threads) have a goal of not splitting the fan base, then that is a problem and this is just a new fracture in the edition war.
What edition war?
okay this seems disingenuous. Are you telling me you believe that the new PHB they are working on, and the new race rules we have seen and the surveys about class modifications are unrelated?
I don’t even know what to say to this.

I said;
“Wait, we do? How? From what source? Did Crawford or Perkins or someone go on twitter while I was napping today and announce that the optional variants in Tasha's will be in the anniversary PHB, and won't be optional anymore?

-this is quite serious. I don’t even believe the above is likely, much less certain, but either way we absolutely do not know what will be in the anniversary phb-

Come on. We literally don't "know" that the PHB will even be revised beyond the normal errata revisions in successive printings. We are all basically assuming it will be, but we absolutely inarguably do not know it.”

-do you imagine the “we” here to somehow exclude myself? We don’t know what will be in future books. You are talking about guesses as if they are certain knowledge.

That sounds like what I said in the last thread on this... standing in the middle of the road, and getting hit by cars going both ways.
If you want to see it that way go ahead. This is exactly the strategy they have been working with for the entirety of 5e. No more new editions, just D&D.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have a serious question that YOU just framed perfectly. If I somehow framed my discussion in the ultimate argument of logic, would it change your mind? What would it take to make you step back and look at things from a different POV?
Okay there seems to be a misunderstanding about what logic is and what it does. You can form an argument of “perfect logic” all you want, it doesn’t make your premises or conclusion correct. It just makes them reasonable.
Now I assume me, you Micha all SHOULD have the same answer here... "Yeah, just nobody has convinced me yet." the problem is, we have been for days going all around on this and none of us have changed our minds... so does that just mean we are so dug in this is it?
If they make statements that contradict statements they’ve already made about these books and how Crawford in particular doesn’t ever want a new player to pick up a phb and then play a game and feel like their phb based character isn’t valid, I will worry about them heavily changing the PHB. (It still won’t likely be reasonable to call it a new edition, but whatever)
no just not happening. I am sick of my problem being framed as "any DM can do anything"

right now on these boards you can search a dozen conversations and find atleast half of them come down to "Outside of DM ruleing here is what the defualt is" when you change the defualt you change that conversation.

As I have said (many times and it always gets brushed away) my table with my friends use a ton of house rules. However I would not expect if I sat down at a gaming store with 5 acquaintances/strangers that they know any of my house rules. I would expect we have a baseline to discus the game.
Oh no. This is about discussions, not even the game as played at the table!?

Im out. I do not care. What matters is the actual game.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
can I just say as long as they are changing things I would rather NO floating ASI... just adjust the standard array, and have race/heritage not affect the scores at all.
Not everyone uses the standard array, or the point buy...I'd wager most people use the default rules and roll their stats. And for them, not having floating ASIs would be difficult to adjust for.

But if you are using the optional rules for array or point buy, you already have everything you need to house-rule this.

Personally, if they are changing things, I'd like to spread the ASIs out among a character's Origin, Background, and Class (with a +1 to each). Like, you would get a +1 to Wis or Cha for choosing the Cleric class, a +1 to Wis for choosing the Acolyte background, and your Origin gives you a floating +1 to put wherever you like.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
no just not happening. I am sick of my problem being framed as "any DM can do anything"

right now on these boards you can search a dozen conversations and find atleast half of them come down to "Outside of DM ruleing here is what the defualt is" when you change the defualt you change that conversation.

As I have said (many times and it always gets brushed away) my table with my friends use a ton of house rules. However I would not expect if I sat down at a gaming store with 5 acquaintances/strangers that they know any of my house rules. I would expect we have a baseline to discus the game..
But this is a feature of the system, not a bug. The ability to adjust the rules as needed to fit your preferred playstyle and the needs of your specific players and table is one of the biggest reasons that D&D is the "gold standard" for tabletop roleplaying games. Its high level of rules flexibility makes it more accessible than many other games on the market.

D&D isn't weak because you have to bend the rules to get it to play the way you want it to play. Rather, D&D is strong because you can bend it into the shape you want without breaking it.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
But this is a feature of the system, not a bug. The ability to adjust the rules as needed to fit your preferred playstyle and the needs of your specific players and table is one of the biggest reasons that D&D is the "gold standard" for tabletop roleplaying games. Its high level of rules flexibility makes it more accessible than many other games on the market.

D&D isn't weak because you have to bend the rules to get it to play the way you want it to play. Rather, D&D is strong because you can bend it into the shape you want without breaking it.
Hell yes. All of this.
 

HammerMan

Legend
But this is a feature of the system, not a bug. The ability to adjust the rules as needed to fit your preferred playstyle and the needs of your specific players and table is one of the biggest reasons that D&D is the "gold standard" for tabletop roleplaying games. Its high level of rules flexibility makes it more accessible than many other games on the market.

D&D isn't weak because you have to bend the rules to get it to play the way you want it to play. Rather, D&D is strong because you can bend it into the shape you want without breaking it.
and once you realize that if that were true WotC could publish 4e and 5e side by side you find the trouble (I mean if $ wasn't an object they could publishe 1e,2e,3.5,4e,&5e and adventures that just use fluff and can be used with any). they have a default. They go forward with the defualt.

Now I can't really or reenable ask them to support my house rules... BUT, when they CHANGE the default I can at least ask they do so with a terminology change.
 

and once you realize that if that were true WotC could publish 4e and 5e side by side you find the trouble (I mean if $ wasn't an object they could publishe 1e,2e,3.5,4e,&5e and adventures that just use fluff and can be used with any). they have a default. They go forward with the defualt.

Now I can't really or reenable ask them to support my house rules... BUT, when they CHANGE the default I can at least ask they do so with a terminology change.
Sorry you have to wait.
It has always been that way. Before a new edition came out, we always got optional rules and variant classes and even variant systems that foreshadowed parts of the new edition. A little bit testing the waters if your gut feeling about what people want is correct.
You can just not use the new rules. For most people it really does not matter if there are sone rules updates.
I can see why 2 stat blocks for the same creature might be a bit confusing, but even there, most people won't bother. It is only we EnWorlders that can argue about that in 5 threads.
(That does not mean arguing is wrong. On the contrary, it might exactly what WotC expects).
 

HammerMan

Legend
Sorry you have to wait.
funny... because I think you misunderstand me...
It has always been that way. Before a new edition came out, we always got optional rules and variant classes and even variant systems that foreshadowed parts of the new edition. A little bit testing the waters if your gut feeling about what people want is correct.
yes, Book of 9 swords was testing the waters for 4e, essentials was testing the waters for 5e... if the stories some insiders tell is true Combat &Tactics and SKills &Powers was testing the waters for a 3e that never happened pre WOTC buy out.

That is kinda what I am talking about. I don't think today this moment we have 6e PHB in our hands. I think we have the lead up to something... weather they call it 5.5 6e, or something else (I would not have guessed essentials or 3.5) but when those new books come for the 50th it WILL most likely be new... the problem I have is that I fear WotC is going to try to eat there cake and have it too. they will say "It's still 5e" and make enough changes that requires some verbage to explain what 5e you ar eplaying... BUT not address all of the foundation flaws so they can pretend it is not a new edition.
You can just not use the new rules. For most people it really does not matter if there are sone rules updates.
yeah, I mean I will use some, and not others... again my table already does it's own thing. I have even tried more than once to bring in WoD style backgrounds and TORG style mixed with 4e style skill challanges... (They all suck cause I am not a designer but I tried)
I can see why 2 stat blocks for the same creature might be a bit confusing, but even there, most people won't bother. It is only we EnWorlders that can argue about that in 5 threads.
(That does not mean arguing is wrong. On the contrary, it might exactly what WotC expects).
the thing is that it will NOT stay to just enworld. I was at Gencon when people told me "If you like 4e you don't understand D&D"... and the idiot that told me that wasn't alive when I started playing.
 

Ok. I did misunderstand you.
I am with you.
The new edition should make a clear cut. It can and probably should be backwards compatible as 3.5 was to 3e and essentials was to 4e.
But we definitely need new core rulebooks that will remove the clutter (And have a useful Index when we are at it).
And noone has the right to tell you or anyone what they have to like.
I too did like any edition I played. I was annoyed about some things (like the sloppy edit of 4e core books) and found out that editions were not for me any longer, but that is for everyone to decide for themself.
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
no just not happening. I am sick of my problem being framed as "any DM can do anything"

right now on these boards you can search a dozen conversations and find atleast half of them come down to "Outside of DM ruleing here is what the defualt is" when you change the defualt you change that conversation.

As I have said (many times and it always gets brushed away) my table with my friends use a ton of house rules. However I would not expect if I sat down at a gaming store with 5 acquaintances/strangers that they know any of my house rules. I would expect we have a baseline to discus the game.

I'm not trying to frame it as "any DM can do anything". But you went through a massive example, with a specific class, using a specific spell, and postulated that this design is bad because they won't know if a DM is using rules that will prevent this specific spell from being used and that is a problem with this specific class that they wish to use. This was the worst case scenario of these rules.

So, let me ask this. 100% serious. If a player is using ANYTHING other than Counterspell, how does this new design hurt them? How does this hurt the fighter, or the rogue, or the cleric or the Ranger or the Monk, ect ect ect. From where I am sitting... it can only possibly affect a single spell.

and with this you moved from "Hey it's a problem that already could come up every now and then," to "If the problem comes up every game who cares" notice the HUGE difference.

That isn't what I said at all. If the problem is that players will complain if encounters don't match with their expectations, then this isn't a design problem. I don't care if they complain about the design occassionally, or if they complain about it every single day. The fact of the matter is that, according to your own words, they are complaining because the design of the encounter doesn't match what they feel it should be. No design is immune to that. No design change is immune to that.

If this is our standard for a "problematic design" then any design that changes anything ever created is problematic. Mythic Monsters that restore to full health when killed (Theros design) is problematic. Monsters having non-standard equipment is problematic. Using a variant set of abilities that the player's didn't expect, like the Ice Devil spear, is problematic.

This has nothing to do with the merits of the design, and everything to do with the players.

I don't understand this sentence. if it is the assumed default then (by defualt) it is the baseline.

Then calling this new design the assumed default is wrong. Because it isn't the assumed default. It is an official variant for some and the default design for new things that don't have a previous version. Because even if they release a new version of the Archmage that uses this design... neither design is the default.

see here is the problem. WotC isn't Disney or Pixar (as much as they are owned by they are not even Hasbro).
if (as I have been repeatedly told) they have very limited production ability, then it isn't "Most will use CGI but some will be hand drawn" it is "Going forward we will be useing CGI but feel free to hand draw your own"

1) I am not hand drawing my own... if I was I would be working on my 4e retroclone with update sensibilities
2) I am not even dislikeing the CGI... my complaint isn't "I don't like the new direction" my complaint is "Pick a lane, update or don't" (and my vote is update.... bring on 6e, fix all the flaws we have found over the last 10ish years and produce form teh ground up D&D that works going forward)

#3 continuing using the old material.

This isn't a false option. This isn't a trick. This isn't a lie. When that Monsters of the Mulitverse book is released, you can still use Volo's and Mordenkainen's. If you don't own those books... then you haven't needed to use those monsters anyways.

me too. I love the idea tbh. It is a step in the right direction. I would actually be fine if 5.5/6/anniversary edition just did away with counterspell and made all monsters like 4e did.

You have missunderstood my problme. I don't dislike the direction... I want clearer labels.


I was 100% on your side of this... until people insisted that the whitchlight abilities were not counterspell able then the battle lines started and I just want them to lable new as new.

They have labeled new as new. They don't need to label these books as "Dungeons and Dragons Sixth Edition" for them to be new, and for everyone to understand that these books are new, and full of a new design.

And, frankly, they've talked about DnD 5e being "evergreen" since... the beginning? So, it sounds like they have a lane that they've been in and you don't like it. I can't help they are trying to keep their word. And frankly... if this isn't a new edition, why would they call it a new edition? Why break that "evergreen" promise before it has become untenable?

Trust me, there is A LOT I wish was fixed about DnD 5e. But I don't see labeling as a problem. If we need new labels, the community will provide.
 

HammerMan

Legend
I'm not trying to frame it as "any DM can do anything". But you went through a massive example, with a specific class, using a specific spell, and postulated that this design is bad because they won't know if a DM is using rules that will prevent this specific spell from being used and that is a problem with this specific class that they wish to use. This was the worst case scenario of these rules.

So, let me ask this. 100% serious. If a player is using ANYTHING other than Counterspell, how does this new design hurt them? How does this hurt the fighter, or the rogue, or the cleric or the Ranger or the Monk, ect ect ect. From where I am sitting... it can only possibly affect a single spell.

weell since I only have reviews to go by and sales pitch I have limited answer. As the months go on we will find more out. Rights now we know they rejiggled CR, changed the spellcasting, and the races. I gave the 1st example we have.
That isn't what I said at all. If the problem is that players will complain if encounters don't match with their expectations, then this isn't a design problem. I don't care if they complain about the design occassionally, or if they complain about it every single day. The fact of the matter is that, according to your own words, they are complaining because the design of the encounter doesn't match what they feel it should be. No design is immune to that. No design change is immune to that.
immune no.... but if you don't change design philiospyh without saying it's a change that is a way to make it MORE immune.
If this is our standard for a "problematic design" then any design that changes anything ever created is problematic. Mythic Monsters that restore to full health when killed (Theros design) is problematic. Monsters having non-standard equipment is problematic. Using a variant set of abilities that the player's didn't expect, like the Ice Devil spear, is problematic.
each of those are indvidual changes, not systemic overhauls to how monsters are made.
#3 continuing using the old material.

This isn't a false option. This isn't a trick. This isn't a lie. When that Monsters of the Mulitverse book is released, you can still use Volo's and Mordenkainen's. If you don't own those books... then you haven't needed to use those monsters anyways.
and that is where the fights will start (and not end)
people will explain that monster CR is off and people will say "Use this other book" and people will say this and that... and we have a midedition edition war...

(BTW what makes you think I want to use the old material?)
They have labeled new as new. They don't need to label these books as "Dungeons and Dragons Sixth Edition" for them to be new, and for everyone to understand that these books are new, and full of a new design.

And, frankly, they've talked about DnD 5e being "evergreen" since... the beginning? So, it sounds like they have a lane that they've been in and you don't like it. I can't help they are trying to keep their word. And frankly... if this isn't a new edition, why would they call it a new edition? Why break that "evergreen" promise before it has become untenable?

Trust me, there is A LOT I wish was fixed about DnD 5e. But I don't see labeling as a problem. If we need new labels, the community will provide.
no, but as 2 major pillars (player race, and monster design) have changed it sure looks like we are going to have to start to lable it...

you said why would they call it a new edition? Why break that "evergreen" promise before it has become untenable? that is my argument in a nutshell... this is the begining of it being untenable.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
weell since I only have reviews to go by and sales pitch I have limited answer. As the months go on we will find more out. Rights now we know they rejiggled CR, changed the spellcasting, and the races. I gave the 1st example we have.

So, based on all the information we have these changes affect no one beyond spellcasters using Counterspell in a purely negative manner. Changing CR doesn't change anything for players. And the Racial options are a rebalance, but the old versions are still imminently usable, and in the case of many abilities a flat improvement. Like the Earth Genasi getting bonus action Blade Ward Prof times per day.

immune no.... but if you don't change design philiospyh without saying it's a change that is a way to make it MORE immune.

This is a change in design philosophy. That is blatantly obvious. What it is not is a completely new design. This design has existed, it simply wasn't as wide-spread. And even if the designers announced this was 6e... people would complain about the changes made to the game if you tried to implement it. The type of people you are describing aren't complaining about not knowing about the changes ahead of time. They are complaining that the changes occurred at all, and that it doesn't fit their preconceived notions.

So again, nothing about what you are proposing (people complaining because the encounter doesn't meet their expectations) is a design problem.

each of those are indvidual changes, not systemic overhauls to how monsters are made.

And yet limiting spellcasting while giving magical actions that can be repeated is not an individual change and is instead a systematic overhaul? Based on what? I don't expect Trolls to change with this new design. I don't expect Bodaks to change with this new design. I don't expect the Champion to change with this design.

This only affects spellcasting monsters. That is a limited subset

and that is where the fights will start (and not end)
people will explain that monster CR is off and people will say "Use this other book" and people will say this and that... and we have a midedition edition war...

(BTW what makes you think I want to use the old material?)

When was the last time anyone seriously used CR in a discussion in these forums? CR has been notoriously inaccurate for years. Saying "CR is off" is like saying "it gets dark at night". We all know.

And if people begin an edition war because different books list different CR values... then they would start an edition war over anything. This seems like fear mongering more than a real problem.

no, but as 2 major pillars (player race, and monster design) have changed it sure looks like we are going to have to start to lable it...

you said why would they call it a new edition? Why break that "evergreen" promise before it has become untenable? that is my argument in a nutshell... this is the begining of it being untenable.

I disagree. It is trivially easy to say that you are using the Multiverse Warpriest instead of the Volo's Warpriest. Just like you say if you are using Eberron Orcs instead of Grey Orcs. It is trivial to say you are using the Multiverse Goblin PC race instead of Volo's Goblin PC race, just like you say you are using Aerni High Elves instead of PHB High Elves.

But it all still uses the same basic math, the same basic assumptions, and can be used interchangeable. Calling this 6th edition would make it sound like they are completely incompatible, and the exact opposite is true.
 

When Van Richten's guide came out, I remember people saying confidently that alignment is dead and that all future wotc products including the next edition will not have alignment. Then six months later they added it back in (with the "typically" modification).

Point is, if you think wotc knows for sure what they want the 2024 edition to look like you are giving them way too much credit. Obviously the designers are thinking about what it will look like and playing around with ideas--it would be weird if they were not--but I just don't get the sense that they are organized enough to really have a clear vision of what they want it to be. Recent history suggests that they are taking things one UA at a time (for example, the pre-strixhaven UA with the multi-class subclasses). Plus important people are leaving wotc all the time, and they are hiring a bunch of new people; with those new people will come new ideas.
 

pukunui

Legend
When Van Richten's guide came out, I remember people saying confidently that alignment is dead and that all future wotc products including the next edition will not have alignment. Then six months later they added it back in (with the "typically" modification).

Point is, if you think wotc knows for sure what they want the 2024 edition to look like you are giving them way too much credit. Obviously the designers are thinking about what it will look like and playing around with ideas--it would be weird if they were not--but I just don't get the sense that they are organized enough to really have a clear vision of what they want it to be. Recent history suggests that they are taking things one UA at a time (for example, the pre-strixhaven UA with the multi-class subclasses). Plus important people are leaving wotc all the time, and they are hiring a bunch of new people; with those new people will come new ideas.
To add to that, Ray Winninger has said that WotC will conduct surveys and the like this year and next to help shape 50Ae. So no, they don't have a clear picture of what the revised anniversary edition will look like. Monsters of the Multiverse is as much an experiment to see how people take to some new design ideas as it is anything else.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
When Van Richten's guide came out, I remember people saying confidently that alignment is dead and that all future wotc products including the next edition will not have alignment. Then six months later they added it back in (with the "typically" modification).

Point is, if you think wotc knows for sure what they want the 2024 edition to look like you are giving them way too much credit.
And I think you might be giving yourself way too much credit, too. I'd wager that neither Wizards of the Coast (the company) nor Wizards of the Coast (the developers and contributors) are listening to Internet banter as closely as we like to think. That's probably what their surveys are for.
 


Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top