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.

 

[Malmuria]

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]

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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]

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?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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]

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]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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]

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]

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.