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

I’m pretty they’re arguing that both mechanics and setting assumptions are contradictory between the “new paradigm” and the PHB game.

That feeling is irrational. I can absolutely imagine irrational conclusions. I cannot imagine any rational set of reasoning that leads to the above conclusion.



No. They made variant races and monsters.

You’ve move the goalposts, but I’ll address this anyway, below.

You didn’t acknowledge it, you replied as if I had made a completely different statement.

That’s rich

This doesn’t follow from what I said. It is in fact a strawman argument.

5e explicitly replaced 4e as a new edition. It made 4e no longer official, it’s canon no longer the official canon.

For 5e to not be a new edition, the rules of 5e would have to be official part of 4e, which wouldn’t even work because the basic math doesn’t line up, abilities reference rules that are different, etc.

They are a variant rule. The only thing that could change that is them making the original write ups invalid via errata.

Sure. Nothing remotely like that has occurred, however. Instead, the equivalent of “your DM might choose to use this variant rule, allowing a short rest to take about 15 minutes. The duration of an ability that can be done as part of a short rest does not change. In such a case, the short rest can be taken at any time during the time it takes to use the ability in question.” has been published. Which is…not a change.

The original is still official, ergo the new way is an addition, not a change.

You mean actually changing a general rule, non-optionally? Sure, that’s a change. You know “the rules for player a Duergar” aren’t a general rule, right? And that having two options for playing Duergar isn’t the same as them changing how it works to play a Duergar?

No. I’m not. Your behavior apparently doesn’t match your intent, but the intent doesn’t change what the behavior is.
We're just going to have to wait and see about Alternative vs. Replacement. Pretty clear where I land. The whole Tasha's thing really felt disingenuous to me, so I'm no longer inclined to give WotC the benefit of the doubt. For me, they are just another 5e content producer with no special status now.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I’m pretty they’re arguing that both mechanics and setting assumptions are contradictory between the “new paradigm” and the PHB game.
Have you asked him rather than assuming that's the case? I re-read their posts, and their point seems very focused on the change in the tone of the setting, and the pre-existing assumptions involved with the setting. Very little is concerning some sort of mechanical conflict. The mechanics change and he's acknowledging the mechanics changing is an issue, but the issue isn't "not compatible" mechanics but rather a change in the assumptions of the setting regarding mechanics. Those are different types of issues.
 

HammerMan

Legend
You didn’t acknowledge it, you replied as if I had made a completely different statement.
I just did, and you quoted it...
That’s rich

This doesn’t follow from what I said. It is in fact a strawman argument.
the strawman is me saying "Here is your arguement" instead I did exactly what you did and showed an example wher ethe same thought would not work to try to find common ground...

but you seem to NOT want to find a base of anything we can agree on.
5e explicitly replaced 4e as a new edition. It made 4e no longer official, it’s canon no longer the official canon.
so if the same book came out, but they said "Going forward this is D& we will support but it is just a variant" it wouldn't be a change?
They are a variant rule. The only thing that could change that is them making the original write ups invalid via errata.
I disagree. if you make a new rule, that new rule is a replacement varriant, but it is ALSO the default going forward, and they wont even support the 'variant' that the original write up of the original rules are...
Sure. Nothing remotely like that has occurred, however. Instead, the equivalent of “your DM might choose to use this variant rule, allowing a short rest to take about 15 minutes. The duration of an ability that can be done as part of a short rest does not change. In such a case, the short rest can be taken at any time during the time it takes to use the ability in question.” has been published. Which is…not a change.
except this is NOT "Your DM may use" it is "Going forward D&D will support"
The original is still official, ergo the new way is an addition, not a change.
you do realize we already know there is a new PHB/DMG/MM coming they are working on... that will replace (no matter what they call it)
You mean actually changing a general rule, non-optionally? Sure, that’s a change.
as long as they lable the 1d12+1d8 as optional... but they then use it going forward and every book uses it... then what?
You know “the rules for player a Duergar” aren’t a general rule, right? And that having two options for playing Duergar isn’t the same as them changing how it works to play a Duergar?
what makes any 1 rule a general rule and another rule a 'not' general rule? the general rule of how races work and interact with evverything else?
No. I’m not. Your behavior apparently doesn’t match your intent, but the intent doesn’t change what the behavior is.
no uyou are reading things that are not on the page.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I just did, and you quoted it...

the strawman is me saying "Here is your arguement" instead I did exactly what you did and showed an example wher ethe same thought would not work to try to find common ground...

but you seem to NOT want to find a base of anything we can agree on.

so if the same book came out, but they said "Going forward this is D& we will support but it is just a variant" it wouldn't be a change?

I disagree. if you make a new rule, that new rule is a replacement varriant, but it is ALSO the default going forward, and they wont even support the 'variant' that the original write up of the original rules are...

except this is NOT "Your DM may use" it is "Going forward D&D will support"

you do realize we already know there is a new PHB/DMG/MM coming they are working on... that will replace (no matter what they call it)

as long as they lable the 1d12+1d8 as optional... but they then use it going forward and every book uses it... then what?

what makes any 1 rule a general rule and another rule a 'not' general rule? the general rule of how races work and interact with evverything else?

no uyou are reading things that are not on the page.
You would both probably make more progress if you stopped point-by-point replying to each other and instead focused on your thesis in reply. I say that as someone who has many times done the point-by-point reply method, so I totally understand why each of you is pursuing that path for the conversation. I'd suggest from experience it tends to not progress towards clarity though. At this point I am not even sure what the thesis is for each of you to agree or disagree with each other. Obviously you think it's more of a change and he thinks it's less of a change but I am unsure why either of you care about the degree of change (though it's clear each of you do care).
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You would both probably make more progress if you stopped point-by-point replying to each other and instead focused on your thesis in reply. I say that as someone who has many times done the point-by-point reply method, so I totally understand why each of you is pursuing that path for the conversation. I'd suggest from experience it tends to not progress towards clarity though. At this point I am not even sure what the thesis is for each of you to agree or disagree with each other. Obviously you think it's more of a change and he thinks it's less of a change but I am unsure why either of you care about the degree of change (though it's clear each of you do care).
I’ve made it irrelevant.
 

HammerMan

Legend
You would both probably make more progress if you stopped point-by-point replying to each other and instead focused on your thesis in reply. I say that as someone who has many times done the point-by-point reply method, so I totally understand why each of you is pursuing that path for the conversation. I'd suggest from experience it tends to not progress towards clarity though. At this point I am not even sure what the thesis is for each of you to agree or disagree with each other. Obviously you think it's more of a change and he thinks it's less of a change but I am unsure why either of you care about the degree of change (though it's clear each of you do care).
Okay.

Here is my ideas.

These rules changes as of today 1/24/2022 is not really a new edition. It IS pointing toward a new edition. (and I don't dislike it)
These rules though WILL (IMO) begin the problem that we saw in 3.0-3.5 where there will be arguments even if they say it isn't a new edition.

I don't care what they call the new PHB. the advanced phb, the 5.5 phb, the anniversary phb, the 6e phb. I just want it to be able to be easy and short explanation what set of rules we are useing at a given table.

my biggest fear/dislike is that they are going to try to keep so much that they WONT fix things to keep it 'backwards compatible'

now I totally can talk about maybe JUST changing this, or JUST changing that isn't enough to constitute a full change, but as I look here and get ready for work here is what I see. We have new WAYs races are made. We have replacement class features. We KNOW the new PHB (what ever we call it) will at least incorporate these changes that up until now have been call optional. We know that going forward already things are not going to flow from the PHB but from these new design guidelines. we know the future is and will be more like this new book (that I wont buy until it is stand alone)
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
We're just going to have to wait and see about Alternative vs. Replacement. Pretty clear where I land. The whole Tasha's thing really felt disingenuous to me, so I'm no longer inclined to give WotC the benefit of the doubt. For me, they are just another 5e content producer with no special status now.
I still don’t get what you’re on about with Tasha’s, as it’s content is…still optional, but yeah this discussion isn’t doing anything useful for any of us at this point.
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
I think (maybe wrong) that the treant and haste one work as spells so they are a bit off... but the ones I have seen the most (invisability and hellfire orb) have always been not counterspellable. in the form of the death knight this ALWAYS was pretty clear it was not a fireball.

They are all written the same way, and they are the same as the abilities you are talking about.

Sure, they are now more common than before, but they are still the same kind of magical effects. Looking at your example of Albert A and Albert B, this is really no different than being at a table where an Imp turns invisible with their non-spell action and the DM rules that it can be counterspelled, versus one where it can't be counterspelled.

Because the same thing will happen now. Some DMs will allow these non-spell spells to be counterspelled, and some will not.

how is changing how 33 rraces work, changing how lots (don't have exact number yet) of monsters work not count as changing?

The same way that using an Aereni Wood Elf doesn't change the Wood Elf. The variants haven't changed the base, just given a new option you can choose to use.

They aren't erasing anything, simply giving you a new format.

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

The only reason they are keeping the old versions active (for now) is to do otherwise would invalidate the reason most people would have to buy the book. That decision has to do with money and nothing else. Like Tasha's I'm sure they fully intend for the new versions to be the "one true way" from now on.

You know, it isn't just you Micah, but you are one of the people. I imagine you'd be much happier if you took off your mind-reading helmet, put away your crystal ball, and just waited to see what the designers actually do.

Because the designers have stated that they haven't been happy with race/class combos for some time, and are looking to decouple that.

This has been taken to mean

1) We hate old players
2) We are following Twitter!
3) We are going forward with a new "one true way truth"
4) All your old books are invalid!

and many many other claims that... don't actually follow from the statements, press releases, from any actual information we have. In 2030 when they release a new pre-published adventure, if you take your 2008 PHB and make characters... you can still play that adventure. If you wanted to use the monsters from the 2008 MM... you probably could.

Are you going to buy that adventure path? I frankly don't care. You are not required to buy any more DnD products, everything released has been good enough to last us for years, and they will last us for years more, but we can stop with the hot takes based on zero evidence except "well I just know" or "But Tasha's became the standard" when, actually, it... really hasn't. People are still using pre-Tasha's material.
 

They are all written the same way, and they are the same as the abilities you are talking about.

Sure, they are now more common than before, but they are still the same kind of magical effects. Looking at your example of Albert A and Albert B, this is really no different than being at a table where an Imp turns invisible with their non-spell action and the DM rules that it can be counterspelled, versus one where it can't be counterspelled.

Because the same thing will happen now. Some DMs will allow these non-spell spells to be counterspelled, and some will not.



The same way that using an Aereni Wood Elf doesn't change the Wood Elf. The variants haven't changed the base, just given a new option you can choose to use.

They aren't erasing anything, simply giving you a new format.

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



You know, it isn't just you Micah, but you are one of the people. I imagine you'd be much happier if you took off your mind-reading helmet, put away your crystal ball, and just waited to see what the designers actually do.

Because the designers have stated that they haven't been happy with race/class combos for some time, and are looking to decouple that.

This has been taken to mean

1) We hate old players
2) We are following Twitter!
3) We are going forward with a new "one true way truth"
4) All your old books are invalid!

and many many other claims that... don't actually follow from the statements, press releases, from any actual information we have. In 2030 when they release a new pre-published adventure, if you take your 2008 PHB and make characters... you can still play that adventure. If you wanted to use the monsters from the 2008 MM... you probably could.

Are you going to buy that adventure path? I frankly don't care. You are not required to buy any more DnD products, everything released has been good enough to last us for years, and they will last us for years more, but we can stop with the hot takes based on zero evidence except "well I just know" or "But Tasha's became the standard" when, actually, it... really hasn't. People are still using pre-Tasha's material.
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, 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. 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.

Where is my logic flawed?

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?
 

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, 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. 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.

Where is my logic flawed?
The PHB is the standard (still), and all of Tasha's are optional rules with regards to the player's handbook. They don't design any book assuming that the reader has anything other than the core 3, so they are written from that perspective. To wit, if you go out now and buy the core gift set and this expanded gift set, the PHB you get will still have the fixed asi, and there will be the optional rule in the expanded gift set.

I don't think the 2024 edition will have fixed asi, but it might not have floating asi either, as there are many other possible options.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I'm just gonna point out that Volo's got errata last year, including removing the penalty to strength from the kobold.

They absolutely cannot have not been working on Monsters of The Multiverse before then.

The two will exist simultaneously, officially, this time next year.
 

I'm just gonna point out that Volo's got errata last year, including removing the penalty to strength from the kobold.

They absolutely cannot have not been working on Monsters of The Multiverse before then.

The two will exist simultaneously, officially, this time next year.
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.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I just want it to be able to be easy and short explanation what set of rules we are useing at a given table.
I think that you may end up dissapointed with regard to this, and sortof by design. Actually sort of by the design goals of the game since the core 3 were the only books. 5e was never meant to be a homogeneous play experience, nor one in which you have "5e lite" and "5e tactical" and "5e low-magic", like some folks want. It's always been a game wherein every single table will operate under different rules, to one extent or another. It is meant to be that. D&D started with that same intention, though it got lost along the way.

I don't cite Gygax on pretty much anything, because the game has moved on, but when we are talking about the basic identity of the game, this is one aspect where I'm quite glad 5e looked back and picked up one of the greatest gems in the bin of half-remembered toys.

D&D is not one game. D&D 5e is not one game.
We KNOW the new PHB (what ever we call it) will at least incorporate these changes that up until now have been call optional.
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.
We know that going forward already things are not going to flow from the PHB but from these new design guidelines.
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.
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.
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 think that you may end up dissapointed with regard to this, and sortof by design. Actually sort of by the design goals of the game since the core 3 were the only books. 5e was never meant to be a homogeneous play experience, nor one in which you have "5e lite" and "5e tactical" and "5e low-magic", like some folks want. It's always been a game wherein every single table will operate under different rules, to one extent or another. It is meant to be that. D&D started with that same intention, though it got lost along the way.

I don't cite Gygax on pretty much anything, because the game has moved on, but when we are talking about the basic identity of the game, this is one aspect where I'm quite glad 5e looked back and picked up one of the greatest gems in the bin of half-remembered toys.

D&D is not one game. D&D 5e is not one game.

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.

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.

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?
Yeah, I'm done. Like I said, it doesn't matter, or at least it shouldn't. Even if I'm right.

Hopefully, there will something more worthy of discussion soon we can engage on. I enjoy our conversations as well.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
That sounds a lot like the old Volo's and Mord's books no longer count, since they are not in this box, and may likely go out of print after this releases in May. But I know we will never get a straight answer on that from WotC until after the release date.

I would have thought that Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat would have gone out of print after they made the collected Tyranny of Dragons single book, but that didn't happen. (In fact, AFAIK the opposite happened and the one-volume Tyranny of Dragons is out of print).

So who knows? Maybe this book have a limited run and Volo's and Tome of Foes will stick around.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Right. Nevermind that, as someone that plays MMORPGs and watches anime, the comparison is lacking. Were anime a big influence, we'd have a more exciting fighter class.
Oof. Yeah.
Yeah, I'm done. Like I said, it doesn't matter, or at least it shouldn't. Even if I'm right.

Hopefully, there will something more worthy of discussion soon we can engage on. I enjoy our conversations as well.
Yeah I hope that something new gets announced soon.
 

Okay.

Here is my ideas.

These rules changes as of today 1/24/2022 is not really a new edition. It IS pointing toward a new edition. (and I don't dislike it)
These rules though WILL (IMO) begin the problem that we saw in 3.0-3.5 where there will be arguments even if they say it isn't a new edition.

I don't care what they call the new PHB. the advanced phb, the 5.5 phb, the anniversary phb, the 6e phb. I just want it to be able to be easy and short explanation what set of rules we are useing at a given table.

my biggest fear/dislike is that they are going to try to keep so much that they WONT fix things to keep it 'backwards compatible'

now I totally can talk about maybe JUST changing this, or JUST changing that isn't enough to constitute a full change, but as I look here and get ready for work here is what I see. We have new WAYs races are made. We have replacement class features. We KNOW the new PHB (what ever we call it) will at least incorporate these changes that up until now have been call optional. We know that going forward already things are not going to flow from the PHB but from these new design guidelines. we know the future is and will be more like this new book (that I wont buy until it is stand alone)
That is a very good explanation, thank you.
I also hope, that in 2024 we will get a new coherent set of rules that will be the new standard.
When 3.5 came along I was not really ready for a change, and in hindsight, I didn't like the changes at all. 3e captured my playstyle way better and fixes in the opposite direction as 3.5 took would have been better.

4e essentials did exactly that. They took 4e and made it more to my liking.

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.

But you are absolutely right. Right now it could take a wrong turn and be 3.5 rather than essentials (for me).
The change in monster design for example as it is, is not exactly my coup of tea. I hope they will find a better solution over the next two years.
 

HammerMan

Legend
They are all written the same way, and they are the same as the abilities you are talking about.

Sure, they are now more common than before, but they are still the same kind of magical effects. Looking at your example of Albert A and Albert B, this is really no different than being at a table where an Imp turns invisible with their non-spell action and the DM rules that it can be counterspelled, versus one where it can't be counterspelled.

Because the same thing will happen now. Some DMs will allow these non-spell spells to be counterspelled, and some will not.
you got the problem right away though... how common the problem is.

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.
The same way that using an Aereni Wood Elf doesn't change the Wood Elf. The variants haven't changed the base, just given a new option you can choose to use.

They aren't erasing anything, simply giving you a new format.
a new format that is the assumed defualt going forward.
 

HammerMan

Legend
I don't think the 2024 edition will have fixed asi, but it might not have floating asi either, as there are many other possible options.
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.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top