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...

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

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 (He/They)
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 (He/They)
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).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top