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

[Parmandur]

I initially assumed the revised setting would be Faerun/Forgotten Realms, but a Xen'drik book/backdoor revision of the Eberron races and Marks seems far more probable and convenient.

Also crazy to think that within a year, we went from 2 non-FR Adventure books (Curse of Strahd and Ghostof Saltmarsh) to knowing about 7 (Witchlight, Netherdeep, Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel. The Spelljammer book, and Dragonlance)...

 

[James Gasik]

I wouldn't have minded being trapped in the Forgotten Realms, if they bothered to cover anything beyond one coastline of one continent.

 

[Parmandur]

I wouldn't have minded being trapped in the Forgotten Realms, if they bothered to cover anything beyond one coastline of one continent.

The Sword Coast is larger than Europe, to be fair, and covers a huge range of climates and cultures. They did a good job exploring it throughly.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

So I just (on a whim thanks to this thread*) grabbed a copy of Fizban's and I noticed that the spellcasting monsters have "spell attack" actions. I can see how that might cause some confusion for counterspell. Is that the first place it showed up? Why not just call it a "magical ranged attack" and avoid the confusion? Maybe counterspell is an uncommon practice even among the designers so they didn't think of it. I assume this is the same as they are listed in Mordenkainen's?


*(it's really because I love dragons as main antagonists)

It's been around since the start with the same language. It's just only recently they have decided to make wide use of it.

 

[James Gasik]

The Sword Coast is larger than Europe, to be fair, and covers a huge range of climates and cultures. They did a good job exploring it throughly.

Sure but it feels strange not to have The Sea of Fallen Stars and Cormyr (let alone Raven's Bluff). I'm not even asking for Zakhara, Kara-Tur, the Bloodstone Lands, or Maztica- each of which is basically it's own setting.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure but it feels strange not to have The Sea of Fallen Stars and Cormyr (let alone Raven's Bluff). I'm not even asking for Zakhara, Kara-Tur, the Bloodstone Lands, or Maztica- each of which is basically it's own setting.

At one point, Perkins was talking abou getting there in tike. They may still, though they have taken a. Turn outside of the Realms at the moment.

 

[James Gasik]

At one point, Perkins was talking abou getting there in tike. They may still, though they have taken a. Turn outside of the Realms at the moment.

Which is fine too, it's also nice to see other settings. I was just saying, I would have been OK with them saying "the Forgotten Realms is the only D&D setting, what is this Greyhawk you speak of?" if they actually covered more of the Realms.

And it's not like it takes a lot to do this, which is what confuses me. Forgotten Realms Adventures from 2e is not a thick book, but it covers a huge swathe of the Realms.

It's almost like they feel you can't print a book without new crunch anymore. Ah well, /derail.

 

[Reynard]

It's been around since the start with the same language. It's just only recently they have decided to make wide use of it.

What monsters had spell attacks listed in their MM entries?

 

[renbot]

What monsters had spell attacks listed in their MM entries?

Off the top of my head? The Lich and the Specter

 

[Parmandur]

Which is fine too, it's also nice to see other settings. I was just saying, I would have been OK with them saying "the Forgotten Realms is the only D&D setting, what is this Greyhawk you speak of?" if they actually covered more of the Realms.

And it's not like it takes a lot to do this, which is what confuses me. Forgotten Realms Adventures from 2e is not a thick book, but it covers a huge swathe of the Realms.

It actually seems that book just covered the Heartlands, which is somewhat more limited than sCAG...?

 

[Reynard]

Off the top of my head? The Lich and the Specter

So they do!

Interestingly, there is no "spell attack" under actions in the SRD. There is an attack action, defined as being ranged or melee, and a cast spell action, but not a spell attack action. I'll have to dig out my MM and see if it says anything.

Note that my interest is mostly academic. I'm just curious what the design intent was behind those choices. I don't actually care about "the debate" and it isn't my goal to spoil this thread with it. And given my Gaming style if a player ever asked to counterspell it and I saw "spell attack" I'd probably allow it, just because.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

So they do!

Interestingly, there is no "spell attack" under actions in the SRD. There is an attack action, defined as being ranged or melee, and a cast spell action, but not a spell attack action. I'll have to dig out my MM and see if it says anything.

Note that my interest is mostly academic. I'm just curious what the design intent was behind those choices. I don't actually care about "the debate" and it isn't my goal to spoil this thread with it. And given my Gaming style if a player ever asked to counterspell it and I saw "spell attack" I'd probably allow it, just because.

The issue with spell attacks is that they don't have a level. Cantrips are also Spell attacks, and I don't think they can be countered.

The attacks are either a weapon attack or a spell attack.

 

[James Gasik]

It actually seems that book just covered the Heartlands, which is somewhat more limited than sCAG...?

Hm, maybe I'm misremembering, let me check.

Arabel, Marsember, Westgate- Cormyr.
Baldur's Gate -that's on the coast, along with Mulmaster, Elturel.
Daerlun -Sembia.

Then there's also Tantras, Zhentil Keep, and Hillsfar.

So no one area gets a lot of coverage, and in fact, it basically skips Waterdeep and the North (no Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, or Silverymoon here).

So it's pretty spread out, I mean, Baldur's Gate to Westgate is a big swathe of land, but yeah, I'll agree, it probably doesn't cover more territory than the SCAG. It's still a pretty packed book for it's size though, which is roughly the same page count as SCAG.

The difference is, FRA is DM-facing, with things like treasure tables, art objects, gods and priesthoods, unique currency, updates to the setting, etc., and the SCAG is more player-facing (or at least, neutral-facing). A book like that might not get made in today's market, I dunno.

 

[Parmandur]

Hm, maybe I'm misremembering, let me check.

Arabel, Marsember, Westgate- Cormyr.
Baldur's Gate -that's on the coast, along with Mulmaster, Elturel.
Daerlun -Sembia.

Then there's also Tantras, Zhentil Keep, and Hillsfar.

So no one area gets a lot of coverage, and in fact, it basically skips Waterdeep and the North (no Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, or Silverymoon here).

So it's pretty spread out, I mean, Baldur's Gate to Westgate is a big swathe of land, but yeah, I'll agree, it probably doesn't cover more territory than the SCAG. It's still a pretty packed book for it's size though, which is roughly the same page count as SCAG.

The difference is, FRA is DM-facing, with things like treasure tables, art objects, gods and priesthoods, unique currency, updates to the setting, etc., and the SCAG is more player-facing (or at least, neutral-facing). A book like that might not get made in today's market, I dunno.

I've flipped through it, it goes into pretty awesome detail ob the Heartland cities.

 

[SkidAce]

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."

Could you clarify this a bit, wont i be able to tell (or discern) their approximate level and still swap spells?

I mean for example, if they have fireball on the list, I know they are at least 5th level, right?

 

[SkidAce]

The video posted above explicitly says these decisions were intentional -- prior to the book coming out. So lacking evidence that this is some sort of cover up, can't we assume that, yes, they intentionally built abilities into some creatures that aren't subject to anti-magic and counterspelling?

The decisions may have been intentional, but that doesn't guarantee they foresaw all the ramifications.

 

[James Gasik]

Man, I'd hope they did. It would be pretty silly to go "yeah so we took away spells from most monsters" without realizing "oh yeah, that makes counterspell pointless, doesn't it?".

 

[FitzTheRuke]

the funny part is in another thread I just got told no one learns magic like wizards, not sorcerers not warlocks, not artificers... when I said they all learn the same spells it set off an argument.

Well, to be fair, they don't learn them "like Wizards", but they do learn them.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, to be fair, they don't learn them "like Wizards", but they do learn them.

Yeah, I mean the Spellbook mechanic is fairly unique, right? I still haven't looked closely at the 5e Artificer- I have fond memories of the original class and was sorely disappointed by the 4e version.

The ability to invest in knowing every spell that is on your list is serious power, only divine casters can match that versatility. Sure it costs money, but (in most 5e games) what is gold? It's as useful as a high score in a console game.

 

[JEB]

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.

Dungeoncraft Wild Beyond the Witchlight Designers Pack - D&D Adventurers League | Dungeon Masters Guild

Dungeoncraft Wild Beyond the Witchlight Designers Pack - The D&D Adventurers League is an ongoing official organized play campaign for Dungeons & Dragons. The D&amp

www.dmsguild.com