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

[TerraDave]

I think the broad goals have been covered. (And to cut right to the chase, if you have the two other books, I really don't think its worth it).

Some details: Numbers have been adjusted, though not as much as you might think. Types have been played with, with new subtypes and pretty much anything humanoid can be non-evil, so some like the gnoll have been turned into monstrosities. Short rest recharges gone (or almost totally gone), including in playable races. Attacks as a magic weapon have been turned into force damage. Spells massively trimmed back for monster and NPC spellcasters. So the high level druid, for example, is missing many iconic druid spells.

Overall streamlining, and presumably aligning with 5.50. But there is every reason to believe you can keeping using the older books, eve with 5.50.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks for sharing that! Assuming it is an accurate description, it seems pretty straightforward: the things listed under the "spellcasting" trait are spells, and other things are not. Now I'm wondering where the confusion is coming from unless they didn't adequately define the trait.

The confusion is coming from the fact that, if you compare many of the revised stat blocks to their original versions, a spell the monster originally had will no longer be in its stat block, and it will have a new ability that is conspicuously similar to the removed spell. So, no, they didn’t make magic missile into an innate ability for ease of reference and then forget to explain whether or not it’s still a spell, but they did, for example, remove healing word from the Warpriest’s spell list and give it a new innate ability called “Healing Light” that lets it heal a creature within 60 feet for 2d8+3 HP as a bonus action (recharge 4-6).

 

[Reynard]

The confusion is coming from the fact that, if you compare many of the revised stat blocks to their original versions, a spell the monster originally had will no longer be in its stat block, and it will have a new ability that is conspicuously similar to the removed spell. So, no, they didn’t make magic missile into an innate ability for ease of reference and then forget to explain whether or not it’s still a spell, but they did, for example, remove healing word from the Warpriest’s spell list and give it a new innate ability called “Healing Light” that lets it heal a creature within 60 feet for 2d8+3 HP as a bonus action (recharge 4-6).

Okay, but the video made it clear those choices were intentional.

 

[Parmandur]

For my own part, I was initially dismissive of this book as I have the two monster books, like their lore, and have the rest of the Races in multiple places. The inclusion of the Magic art from the Forgotten Realms card Set, and little flavor entails, as well as the attraction of having refined forwards compatible versions of all the Races I'm an easy place to reference...it's enough that I took the pre-order special from my FLGS.

 

[Parmandur]

Okay, but the video made it clear those choices were intentional.

Absolutely, but some people didn't cotton to the intention.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, but the video made it clear those choices were intentional.

Yes, which is what I’ve been saying this whole time.

 

[Blue]

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

It's the other way around. They have no levels to interact with something like Counterspell or Globe of Invulnerability. It doesn't need anything explicit saying it doesn't interact any more than an axe does.

Here's a sample - the old Derro Savant had a bunch of spells, including Chromatic Orb. This has less spells, and Chromatic Orb is turned into a attack power Chromatic Beam.

Chromatic Beam. The derro launches a brilliant beam of magical energy in a 5-foot-wide line that is 60 feet long. Each creature in the line must make a DC 12 Dexterity saving throw, taking 21 (6d6) radiant damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

It doesn't even pass the "Is this a spell?" test in the SA Compendium.

An Oath of the Ancients paladin with an aura granting resistance to spell damage won't affect this, though it would for Chromatic Orb. A Globe of Invulnerability, or monster-like equivilents like the Rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity, don't stop it as written. Heck, there's not even anything that says a resistance to magic would help, though a DM could make a ruling.

 

[Blue]

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 see it the other way - casters are capable of doing so much that isn't damage, but there are so few ways to counter it. Counterspell is an integral part of the tactical part of combat. Compare it to all maneuvering and tactical positioning that happens on the battlefield to intercept foes, get to others, block lines of sight - Counterspell (and others, like Absorb Elements) are part of that tactics in the casting arena. The game is much poorer and more slugfest without it.

 

[Blue]

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.

So should we remove all save-for-nothing spells? And a rogue missing an attack?

Sometimes, you don't succeed. Sometimes, your opponent doesn't succeed. Making sure it happens more to them is part of the tactics of the game.

 

[Blue]

The worst kind of game design is telling a player that actively wants to play your game that they don’t get to actually play your game. The longer between turns the worse this is. A lightning-fast two-player card game? No big deal. An RPG where it could be 20-30 minutes between my turns…only when it’s my turn…nope sorry, you don’t get to do anything. Launch that terrible design idea into the sun.

Let's remove players getting knocked out then. That can happen to anyone, not just a caster when facing another caster with a particular resource.

The spirit of the game has that sometimes your attack will miss, you spell will be countered, you will not be close enough to hit them with your axe, you will be Held, Restrained, in a pit, against a creature with fire resistance to your flame blade, or otherwise need to work around.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

5e is still "rulings over rules" so pick whatever makes you happy. If you feel the need to make things consistent with 5.5, then everything is proficiency bonus, so everything is from 2 to 9, which is a good spell range.

 

[JEB]

@Leatherhead is doing a very detailed, creature-by-creature breakdown of the changes to monsters here: D&D 5E - Let’s Read Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse.

And there's a breakdown of the changes to every race in this Reddit post.

 

[Sulicius]

As far as I have seen, a spell-like ability replacing a spell is quite rare. Usually it is reserved for a humanoid spellcaster as one ability or spell that is iconic for it, like raising undead as a necromancer.

What is the most pleasant about the new stat blocks, is that many abilities that once took an action are now part of the multiattack or a bonus action. This means that many monsters can do their suboptimal signature move while ALSO making an attack. This makes monsters more fun and flexible to play.

Many effects that were very situational have been made baseline, such as additional damage on attacks when made at advantage. This makes monsters less swingy in different situations, which means a DM like me can rely on it’s strength compared to its CR more.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

An Oath of the Ancients paladin with an aura granting resistance to spell damage won't affect this, though it would for Chromatic Orb. A Globe of Invulnerability, or monster-like equivilents like the Rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity, don't stop it as written. Heck, there's not even anything that says a resistance to magic would help, though a DM could make a ruling.

Magic Resistance would help. It says it's a magical ability.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Let's remove players getting knocked out then. That can happen to anyone, not just a caster when facing another caster with a particular resource.

The spirit of the game has that sometimes your attack will miss, you spell will be countered, you will not be close enough to hit them with your axe, you will be Held, Restrained, in a pit, against a creature with fire resistance to your flame blade, or otherwise need to work around.

And yet, the game survived, and thrived, with its first two editions having no means of magical counterspelling, and its third edition by only counterspelling if you cast the exact same spell as the one being cast at the same time. Are you saying that the game existed its first 25 - 30 years without having its own spirit of the game?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Any mild change of any sort will get some up in arms...

It is not just that, speculation in advance of the facts will put forth versions of the mechanics based on hearsay and that gets entrenched and adds to the controversy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What are those rule changes and updates?

There is a style guide that summarises the changes to monster stat blocks. I did have a quick look but I couldn't lay my hands on it. It's quite extensive.

 

[pukunui]

Magic Resistance would help. It says it's a magical ability.

Except that they've been very deliberately rewording that trait to affect spells only. I feel they should rename it to "Spell Resistance" to make it clearer.

 

[Shiroiken]

That makes more sense. I got the impression from earlier descriptions that they, say, converted Magic Missile to an inmate ability without defining whether it was still a spell (but just given quick reference stats so you didn't have to page flip).

To give an example, a caster might have the ability "Bolt of Fire" that is mechanically identical to the cantrip Firebolt. Given the similarity, many wondered if it's supposed to be the spell. Others (such as myself) argue that it should be, despite the official position. In addition to Counterspell, which is contentious, there are other player abilities that become nerfed as a result of these no longer being spells.

The other issue that some have with the change to casters is that you can't customize them anymore. If I wanted to use an ice themed Mage, I could switch out some of the spells known for other spells of the same level. If I had a particular setup that would take advantage of Evards Black Tentacles, too bad for me, since all I have is Fireball. Sadly, this problem would be super easy to solve by simply keeping the text "X is a Nth level caster using Y as spellcasting ability."

 

[Reynard]

To give an example, a caster might have the ability "Bolt of Fire" that is mechanically identical to the cantrip Firebolt. Given the similarity, many wondered if it's supposed to be the spell. Others (such as myself) argue that it should be, despite the official position. In addition to Counterspell, which is contentious, there are other player abilities that become nerfed as a result of these no longer being spells.

The other issue that some have with the change to casters is that you can't customize them anymore. If I wanted to use an ice themed Mage, I could switch out some of the spells known for other spells of the same level. If I had a particular setup that would take advantage of Evards Black Tentacles, too bad for me, since all I have is Fireball. Sadly, this problem would be super easy to solve by simply keeping the text "X is a Nth level caster using Y as spellcasting ability."

That people don't like the change is not the same thing as it being confusing or poorly designed.

And I can't figure out why the thing in the book is going to stop you from doing whatever you want in your game, in any case.