D&D 5E Explain: Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse

[Reynard]

What is it? Who is it for? Why should someone who has Volos and Tome of Foes purchase this? How is the information different than those previous books?

NOTE: the purpose of this thread is to be purely informational. There are other threads for different kinds of arguments regarding this book. All I am looking to do here is create a concise repository of basic facts that can help people (like, but not limited to, me) decide whether to buy this book. Thanks for your cooperation!

 

[Morrus]

It’s for people who don’t have the previous two books, or who would like the changes and rules updates in the new one.

 

[Reynard]

It’s for people who don’t have the previous two books, or who would like the changes and rules updates in the new one.

What are those rule changes and updates?

 

[Morrus]

What are those rule changes and updates?

I haven’t got the book, so I’ll leave that answer to people who got it in the gift set earlier this year.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t have the book either, but I understand that the general gist of the changes is adding class tags, adding “typically” to monster alignments, some type changes, and streamlining monster spellcasting - spells that directly affect a monster’s CR are reworked into abilities that are incorporated right into the stat block, spell lists are reworked, and spells are changed to long rest or short rest recovery instead of X/day. Also some tweaks to non-spell abilities, for example False Appearance now gives an Intelligence (Investigation) DC to determine that the creature is animate, and grants the creature advantage on Initiative if it’s motionless at the start of combat.

 

[Blue]

The book has collected (from more than just Volo's and Tome of Foes) a large number of non-PHB races and updated them to both the current state of races (floating ASI, no alignment/age/etc, move 1d4 natural weapons to 1d6 unarmed strikes, [PROF] times per day instead of X per short rest, etc.). It has also taken the stat blocks (not the extensive lore sections) from Volo's and Tome of Foes and updated those tot he new style that debuted in Witchlight. Basically spellcasting has been greatly simplified and cut down, and a number of what used to be spells are now powers that can be reused, and also aren't spells anymore so aren't subject to anti-spell like Globe of Invulnerability or Counterspell.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

a number of what used to be spells are now powers that can be reused, and also aren't spells anymore so aren't subject to anti-spell like Globe of Invulnerability or Counterspell.

has this been confirmed yet?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

has this been confirmed yet?

Yes, we have seen the monster stat blocks.

 

[overgeeked]

What are those rule changes and updates?

The included PC races are updated to what is apparently the new paradigm for 5.5. Basically the format we've seen in Witchlight and Fizban's. The monster stat blocks have been updated to make them hit at their weight class instead of their damage being hidden in spells that some DM's skipped over. There's also some tweaks to the math and actions. A lot of the lore has been dropped to make space for all the stuff from both books.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, we have seen the monster stat blocks.

I think they’re asking if it has been confirmed that they don’t count as spells and are therefore immune to counterspell and such. To which the answer is still yes, but the stat block alone doesn’t tell us that. Jeremy Crawford confirmed it in some video or other though.

 

[Reynard]

I think they’re asking if it has been confirmed that they don’t count as spells and are therefore immune to counterspell and such. To which the answer is still yes, but the stat block alone doesn’t tell us that. Jeremy Crawford confirmed it in some video or other though.

How could that be a piece of information that isn't explicitly noted in the book -- like, in that front section before all the monsters and stuff? I started this thread partly because the book has been out for months, just not able to be purchased as a stand alone thing, no?

 

[overgeeked]

How could that be a piece of information that isn't explicitly noted in the book -- like, in that front section before all the monsters and stuff? I started this thread partly because the book has been out for months, just not able to be purchased as a stand alone thing, no?

The problem isn't with the stat blocks as written, it's with the wording of counterspell. As written, counterspell doesn't effect these new abilities. Unless WotC erratas that or releases a Sage Advice on it. Or updates it in 5.5.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, we have seen the monster stat blocks.

I think they’re asking if it has been confirmed that they don’t count as spells and are therefore immune to counterspell and such. To which the answer is still yes, but the stat block alone doesn’t tell us that. Jeremy Crawford confirmed it in some video or other though.

How could that be a piece of information that isn't explicitly noted in the book -- like, in that front section before all the monsters and stuff? I started this thread partly because the book has been out for months, just not able to be purchased as a stand alone thing, no?

yes that is what I am asking. Has aanyone confrimed the intent (weather it is written in book or not I am not even sure) that these new special ability spell replacements skip over spell immunity and counterspell

last I heard we were still waiting on player faceing rules for this

 

[the Jester]

How could that be a piece of information that isn't explicitly noted in the book -- like, in that front section before all the monsters and stuff? I started this thread partly because the book has been out for months, just not able to be purchased as a stand alone thing, no?

I suspect the thinking is, "If it doesn't say it's a spell, it's not a spell" combined with "Why would something that's not a spell be a spell?" -ignoring the confusion over abilities that look, sound, and smell very much like spells.

 

[Reynard]

I suspect the thinking is, "If it doesn't say it's a spell, it's not a spell" combined with "Why would something that's not a spell be a spell?" -ignoring the confusion over abilities that look, sound, and smell very much like spells.

But wouldn't the designers know it might be an issue? Why not answer the question in the actual text.

"Spell Like Abilities: These abilities are considered spells for the purpose of counterspell, dispel and anti-magic shell. If the level of the spell must be determined, use CR/2." Or whatever the appropriate mechanics would be (I'm just making stuff up off the top of my head). My point is: why isn't this information in the book that introduces the new mechanics?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I suspect the thinking is, "If it doesn't say it's a spell, it's not a spell" combined with "Why would something that's not a spell be a spell?" -ignoring the confusion over abilities that look, sound, and smell very much like spells.

i aalso think that part of it is (IMO) the creatores can't think of every combo. If counterspell, globe of invun and things like it didn't come up, they may just not of thought of it.

 

[Oofta]

The problem isn't with the stat blocks as written, it's with the wording of counterspell. As written, counterspell doesn't effect these new abilities. Unless WotC erratas that or releases a Sage Advice on it. Or updates it in 5.5.

Or conversely is killed, it's body burned, the ashes spread to the 4 winds and never spoken of again.

Counterspell is intriguing in theory, in practice it's just boring. As long as it's removed from the enemies as well I don't see a problem.

 

[overgeeked]

Or conversely is killed, it's body burned, the ashes spread to the 4 winds and never spoken of again.

Counterspell is intriguing in theory, in practice it's just boring. As long as it's removed from the enemies as well I don't see a problem.

Oh. I agree. Any version of "your turn is wasted" or "lose a turn" are all terrible mechanics and should be stripped from the game and killed with fire. Unfortunately, that's a basic and assumed part of the game for many.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or conversely is killed, it's body burned, the ashes spread to the 4 winds and never spoken of again.

Counterspell is intriguing in theory, in practice it's just boring. As long as it's removed from the enemies as well I don't see a problem.

I mean... that is as likely... my understanding is we have not heard.

this change may mean no counterspell in the 2024 books (I would shed no tears) or it could be rewritten to accommodate this.

It might even be the Devs have not decided.

 

[Helldritch]

Or conversely is killed, it's body burned, the ashes spread to the 4 winds and never spoken of again.

Counterspell is intriguing in theory, in practice it's just boring. As long as it's removed from the enemies as well I don't see a problem.

Oh. I agree. Any version of "your turn is wasted" or "lose a turn" are all terrible mechanics and should be stripped from the game and killed with fire. Unfortunately, that's a basic and assumed part of the game for many.

I could not agree more. Both of what you say is true. Counterspell should never have seen the day.
On the other hand, Dispel Magic is quite fine.
But I will surely miss the spell slot system for foes. I much prefer that.