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


log in or register to remove this ad


JEB

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.
I don't doubt for a second that Wizards intended to leave alignment out of future books as of Van Richten's; you can see the steps leading up to that choice in Candlekeep and even Tasha's. I suspect what happened is that they got enough negative feedback about the removal that they shifted to a less extreme solution.

Likewise, I see no reason to expect that they won't proceed with the race and monster design philosophy in Monsters of the Multiverse, unless they get feedback that suggests otherwise. That approach has also been seen in the last few books; this is just the first time we've seen it applied to previous 5E material on a large scale.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, to be clear - they are clearly experimenting at this point. But I'm also pretty sure the design decisions they're making in printed publications are ones they absolutely intend to stick with, unless given compelling reasons to change course.
 

HammerMan

Legend
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.
it's trivial and easy to say it about 1 or 2 races or monsters... we are talking about the systematic change of all races and monsters.
 

HammerMan

Legend
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.
and as such people like me that want to insure the changes at least have a chance to follow what we want... should be speaking up.
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
it's trivial and easy to say it about 1 or 2 races or monsters... we are talking about the systematic change of all races and monsters.

In one source book.

Is it difficult to talk about 3rd edition? We can talk about the 3rd edition fighter, or the 3rd edition warblade or the 3rd edition Bodak. This is the entire reason you want to label the changes as an edition change, so you can say "6e XYZ" If you can do that, you can just as easily use "Multiverse" or whatever other label we end up adopting to describe the new material.

And again, it isn't changing ALL monsters. I'm sure that the Bodak, the Barghest, the Froghemoth, and many other non-spellcasting monsters didn't change at all.
 


HammerMan

Legend
In one source book.

Is it difficult to talk about 3rd edition? We can talk about the 3rd edition fighter, or the 3rd edition warblade or the 3rd edition Bodak. This is the entire reason you want to label the changes as an edition change, so you can say "6e XYZ" If you can do that, you can just as easily use "Multiverse" or whatever other label we end up adopting to describe the new material.
can I talk about the 3e ranger and the 3.5 ranger and that they are not the exact same. I can discus the 5e ranger or the 2e ranger in the same sentences... they are all different. It isn't JUST 1 source book. It is the first of the new source books. (even that not really we have had witchlight for a bit)

Can we call it "multiverse warpreist" as easy as I can call it a 6e warpriest. I actuall called the Bo9S Warblade 'fighter' for a year before I left D&D tbh.
And again, it isn't changing ALL monsters. I'm sure that the Bodak, the Barghest, the Froghemoth, and many other non-spellcasting monsters didn't change at all.
I am pretty sure you are wrong on this
 





Chaosmancer

Legend
All of these monsters did get some slight changes.

Are they just like, hp and damage being modified a few points, or are they getting altered abilities?

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

can I talk about the 3e ranger and the 3.5 ranger and that they are not the exact same. I can discus the 5e ranger or the 2e ranger in the same sentences... they are all different. It isn't JUST 1 source book. It is the first of the new source books. (even that not really we have had witchlight for a bit)

Can we call it "multiverse warpreist" as easy as I can call it a 6e warpriest. I actuall called the Bo9S Warblade 'fighter' for a year before I left D&D tbh.

And then the new sourcebooks can be collectively referred to as "anniversary" instead of Multiverse. It doesn't NEED to be 6e.

I am pretty sure you are wrong on this

If it is just having 70 hp instead of 65... is literally any player going to care? That information isn't even supposed to be considered by players. Let alone annoy them if it is changed.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
If it is just having 70 hp instead of 65... is literally any player going to care?
tumblr_nodbqyRlpD1sl21koo1_400.gifv


Wait... No. No I don't. I doubt most people will either.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top