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.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

My memory sucks. The Drow aren’t in the book. The Shadar-Kai have the above traits except that they have thier teleport ability rather than spells.

edit: ninja’d by @Veltharis ap Rylix . Good catch.

No worries. Given what the write-ups MotM has for the likes of duergar, eladrin, and shadar-kai, it's pretty easy to extrapolate what to expect from a future revision to the drow racial statblock, and precisely because it's so easy, I've see quite a few people (here and elsewhere) acting as though it's actually in the book.

I just wanted to remind everyone that it's not, and to not get too up in arms over what is effectively headcanon, at least for the moment.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Because that hasn’t occurred!?

The older race write ups are literally still official. When they replace things, they issue errata and change older books with that thing, as they did with the change to how Bladesingers work.

They are explicitly not doing that, here.

is there a reason you can't talk about things without assumeing the worst in everything I say?

Is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge fairly basic rhetorical devices, like a comparative example? I said something like, “Calling this an edition change is like calling XYZ (formatting)and edition change.” And you replied as if I had claimed that this situation is about formatting. It is very obvious that I don’t think it’s a case of formatting, because I’d have to be speaking absolute gibberish to say what I said, ie “this is like [formatting issue]” and mean “this is a case of a formatting disagreement”.

now take a step back. if you are correct that if you use the logic you think I am, that changes what I say, then by defualt you are NOT understanding what I am saying.

Or, you are refusing to acknowledge the natural result of what you’re arguing.

complete changes to races and stat blocks of monsters... going forward we will only get the new way... I don't know how else to define a change.

Change requires replacement, in this context. Since the older write ups are not being errata’d, nor made unofficial, there isn’t a change.

if they were 100% optional then we would expect to either get both going forward or only the orginal... what do you expect?

That doesn’t follow.

if those varriants are all going to be the defualt going forward they are not variants but a change.

That isn’t how anything works.

wow... you wrote this whole thing accuseing me of things but you assume i am the rude one.. wow

Calling you on rude behavior isn’t rude. Don’t try to play the reversal game, please. I’m willing to drop it, giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding intent, but please don’t try to pull the thing where you take offense at someone not liking how you talked to them.

 

[Mistwell]

Okay. A PHB Wood Elf and a MotM Drow can play in the same game and…literally nothing is complicated. No extra effort required. It just works.

Because they’re part of the same edition.

The two of you seem to be talking past each other. You seem to be arguing the mechanics, and he seems to be arguing the setting assumptions. Yes, you're correct that none of the mechanics are in conflict with prior game mechanics. Yes, he's right that some of the setting assumptions are in conflict with some of the prior setting assumptions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What about it? It has absolutely no impact on the argument. The player just reads their traits from the writeup they’re using. Done. They’re playing a motm duergar? Cool. It’s a dwarf, so it can use the dwarven throwing hammer magic item, and anything else that requires being a dwarf. If their brother wants to play a duergar with stonecunning, they can do so. Nothing breaks. Nothing needs to be adjusted, converted, or anything. They can both just sit down and play.

No, it is explicitly adding.

Do you actually not know what a comparative example is, or are you being weirdly pedantic?

Same logic. If we take your arguments seriously, we must then review other supplements. If we do so, using your logic in this thread, Tasha’s is absolutely 5.5e, but the errata document changes more than Tasha’s does, even if we pretend that “here’s an optional variant” is a change.

But they haven’t replaced anything! They’ve presented new options! That’s it!

How? They could fill a 300 page book with optional variants and I cannot fathom how a person could rationally conclude that it is anything other than an expansion of the game.

No, it isn’t. Intentions aren't actions. You may not have intended to be rude and dismissive, but you were.

A lot of people I've seen on this site feel that Tasha's represented a least something like a edition shift, especially when they immediately dropped the "it's optional" story and moved forward with it (as I believe they always intended). You literally can't imagine someone feeling that way?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because that hasn’t occurred!?

The older race write ups are literally still official. When they replace things, they issue errata and change older books with that thing, as they did with the change to how Bladesingers work.

They are explicitly not doing that, here.

Is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge fairly basic rhetorical devices, like a comparative example? I said something like, “Calling this an edition change is like calling XYZ (formatting)and edition change.” And you replied as if I had claimed that this situation is about formatting. It is very obvious that I don’t think it’s a case of formatting, because I’d have to be speaking absolute gibberish to say what I said, ie “this is like [formatting issue]” and mean “this is a case of a formatting disagreement”.

Or, you are refusing to acknowledge the natural result of what you’re arguing.

Change requires replacement, in this context. Since the older write ups are not being errata’d, nor made unofficial, there isn’t a change.

That doesn’t follow.

That isn’t how anything works.

Calling you on rude behavior isn’t rude. Don’t try to play the reversal game, please. I’m willing to drop it, giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding intent, but please don’t try to pull the thing where you take offense at someone not liking how you talked to them.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't want to pick out ay one post but just say:
The changes from 3e to 3.5 are by far bigger than we have seen anything in 5e so far including tasha and including MpMoM.

A few examples:
Gnomes are now favouring bards instead of illusionists.
Rangers were moved from mostly fighter to something between fighter and rogue (d8 hp).
All spell schools and levels were completely redone.
Spells were broken into parts.
Cover and concealment were simplified so that it favoured grids over Totm.
Prestige classes became even more central.
Skills were changed.
Spellcasters in general were buffed even more (although some key spells were nerfed, e. g. sleep).

Noone claimed that 3.5 was actually a completely different edition. But it was a huge change, in my opinion even more so than 4e essentials was to vanilla 4e.
Maybe not as much as players options skills ad powers changed 2e.

 

[HammerMan]

Because that hasn’t occurred!?

okay, so you don't think they made new rules to replace old ones?

The older race write ups are literally still official. When they replace things, they issue errata and change older books with that thing, as they did with the change to how Bladesingers work.

and again... this is now going forward the new way they do things. Nothing invaladated 1e, or 2e, or 3e, or 3.5, or 4e... we just got new ways fo doing things going forward... the fact that you still own your 1e book doesn't make 1e into 5e.

Is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge fairly basic rhetorical devices, like a comparative example?

i akcknoladge and disagree

Or, you are refusing to acknowledge the natural result of what you’re arguing.

or you are arguing just to argue...

Change requires replacement, in this context. Since the older write ups are not being errata’d, nor made unofficial, there isn’t a change.

so by this train of thought since nothing 5e did replaced a rule from 4e, it just was a new variant going forward it is not a new edition... we both know that isn't true.

now we can address weather these changes themselves make it a new edition, or if they point to larger changes... but can we please not act like going forward they are going to just be a variant rule like "how long a rest is"

That doesn’t follow.

feats are optional... so adventures can be run with or without feats. How long a rest is had varriant rules... both have defualt rules (no feats, and 1hr/8hrs) if they change the defualt to be yes feats are always in and rests are now 5 min short rests and 1 hour long rests, then going forward that is a change.

That isn’t how anything works.

if a new way of doiung something is put forward, and it is now the assumed defualt, how is that not a change?

if tomorrow they put out a new book where instead of rolling 1d20 everyone rolls 1d12+1d8 and you only crit on BOTH a nat 12 and a Nat 8 but only crit fail on 2 nat 1s.... well then that is just variant not a change?

Calling you on rude behavior isn’t rude. Don’t try to play the reversal game, please. I’m willing to drop it, giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding intent, but please don’t try to pull the thing where you take offense at someone not liking how you talked to them.

Again, you are reading things here that are not.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

So, the official product page for the Rules Expansion Set says this:

Crafted for DMs and players alike, this collection brings together all the fifth edition rules expansion books in one set, complete with a beautiful new Dungeon Master’s screen.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

The probably will.
But you might still get some copies if you really want to have them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The two of you seem to be talking past each other. You seem to be arguing the mechanics, and he seems to be arguing the setting assumptions. Yes, you're correct that none of the mechanics are in conflict with prior game mechanics. Yes, he's right that some of the setting assumptions are in conflict with some of the prior setting assumptions.

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

A lot of people I've seen on this site feel that Tasha's represented a least something like a edition shift, especially when they immediately dropped the "it's optional" story and moved forward with it (as I believe they always intended). You literally can't imagine someone feeling that way?

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

okay, so you don't think they made new rules to replace old ones?

No. They made variant races and monsters.

and again... this is now going forward the new way they do things. Nothing invaladated 1e, or 2e, or 3e, or 3.5, or 4e... we just got new ways fo doing things going forward... the fact that you still own your 1e book doesn't make 1e into 5e.

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

i akcknoladge and disagree

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

or you are arguing just to argue...

That’s rich

so by this train of thought since nothing 5e did replaced a rule from 4e, it just was a new variant going forward it is not a new edition... we both know that isn't true.

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.

now we can address weather these changes themselves make it a new edition, or if they point to larger changes... but can we please not act like going forward they are going to just be a variant rule like "how long a rest is"

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

feats are optional... so adventures can be run with or without feats. How long a rest is had varriant rules... both have defualt rules (no feats, and 1hr/8hrs) if they change the defualt to be yes feats are always in and rests are now 5 min short rests and 1 hour long rests, then going forward that is a change.

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.

if a new way of doiung something is put forward, and it is now the assumed defualt, how is that not a change?

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

if tomorrow they put out a new book where instead of rolling 1d20 everyone rolls 1d12+1d8 and you only crit on BOTH a nat 12 and a Nat 8 but only crit fail on 2 nat 1s.... well then that is just variant 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?

Again, you are reading things here that are not.

No. I’m not. Your behavior apparently doesn’t match your intent, but the intent doesn’t change what the behavior is.