D&D 5E Monsters of the Multiverse Releases a Day Early

Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse is now available to buy, a day earlier than scheduled. While it releases most places tomorrow, you can grab it from D&D Beyond today.

Monsters of the Multiverse | Dungeons & Dragons

Discover a multiverse of lore with over 250 monsters, combined and updated from Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Parmandur]

Also - there's the question of what we can expect in the future for 5e for monster books. It seems that VGtM and MToF are seen by WotC as experiments that ended up being something of a mixed bag - the format seems popular, but the actual lore became quickly outdated in some cases, and they were both seen as thematically very unfocused when they were published (even MToF's theme of "warring foes" kind of fell flat when they purposely included gnomes and halflings and specifically said they didn't have foes). FToD seems to have been created in response to this, especially with its much tighter theming and focus on one particular group of creatures. Should we assume we'll see FToD-style books for, say, undead or aberrations? Will creature types from the first two books be revisited with updated lore - will we see, say, an "extraplanar creatures" book with fiends in it (as well as celestials and others)? And will we see more compilations like MotM, for those who just want the stats?

Well, I thinknwe may see more Setting books, which kind of stole the flavor-plus-monsters role, by and large. Most of them have big bestisries, and now Spelljammer will have it's own small monster book...

 

[Parmandur]

Are you referring to the Spelljammer MC or are they releasing another standalone MC before 2024?

I am referring to that, yes, note thst it is called Monsterous Compendium Volume 1, and they did say when they released it that they had plans to pit out more along those lines.

 

[Blue]

Yeah, the primary audience was people who didn't have Xanathar's, Tasha's, Volo's, or Mordenkainen's yet, to give them an easy entry point. Lots of new art, too.

I disagree. I have all of those books, and have passed up other books while finding this one worthwhile to purchase.

This is a collection of all of the races with updates, among other things. Much like XGtE and Tasha's are collections of the subclasses (also among other things). It is a great companion for character building so I don't have to carrying around a bunch of book -- and that bunch aren't even correct anymore because there's new versions so I'd have to errata them up.

Plus the monsters have been updated and are easier to run. Still out on "better" to run, time will tell. But the session I ran earlier tonight used the MP:MM stat blocks for Warlock of the Fiend, Oinoloth, and Canoloth as opposed to the original versions.

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree. I have all of those books, and have passed up other books while finding this one worthwhile to purchase.

This is a collection of all of the races with updates, among other things. Much like XGtE and Tasha's are collections of the subclasses (also among other things). It is a great companion for character building so I don't have to carrying around a bunch of book -- and that bunch aren't even correct anymore because there's new versions so I'd have to errata them up.

Plus the monsters have been updated and are easier to run. Still out on "better" to run, time will tell. But the session I ran earlier tonight used the MP:MM stat blocks for Warlock of the Fiend, Oinoloth, and Canoloth as opposed to the original versions.

I didn't say it's not worthwhile: just got it from my FLGS, myself. But the primary audience was the Rules Expansion gift set, which was primarily.a deal for people who did have those 4 books yet.

 

[R_J_K75]

it is called Monsterous Compendium Volume 1, and they did say when they released it that they had plans to pit out more along those lines.

I didnt catch either

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I was mainly critiquing the use of the 'Disneyfying' angle. Duergar can be a lot of different things. It does sound out of context with the duergar monster entries. How much lore is included in MP:MotM? (not just duergar but overall)

This book is a more setting agnostic version of Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. I'm pretty sure they included non-standard art of a Duergar in the player options section of the book in order to give an example of what a Duergar player character from a non-typical 5e setting could look like. Because, you know, the D&D multiverse is diverse and can include a world where Duergar aren't evil.

. . . I think it's pretty stupid to call representing a more diverse array of versions of D&D races "Disneyfying" the game. If "Disneyfying" means "not every setting is identical to the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk" . . . that's a pretty stupid and useless complaint of the product, isn't it?

 

[John R Davis]

I made no mention of it not being FR GH etc

The disneyfying bit is likely the fact you can be a twee little duergar as a PC. Or Fairy. Or rabbit-person

I'm clearly not a great fan of anthropomorphic PC races.

And you called me stupid twice. It's 2022 so I will take offence

 

[JEB]

Should we assume we'll see FToD-style books for, say, undead or aberrations? Will creature types from the first two books be revisited with updated lore - will we see, say, an "extraplanar creatures" book with fiends in it (as well as celestials and others)?

Possibly, since Fizban's did seem to be received pretty well. But I wouldn't expect them until after the 2024 core rulebooks are released. The next two years look to be heavier with settings, based on what we know, presumably to give them a lot of options to market along with the even-more-multiverse-centric updated rules.

Going off of @Parmandur's comments, we could also see almost-type-themed sets of monsters packaged with appropriate settings - a Planescape setting book would be an obvious excuse for more planar monsters, for example. We also have two brand-new settings on the way in 2023, so who knows what monster themes might go with those...

And will we see more compilations like MotM, for those who just want the stats?

I could see a book that compiles and updates all the monsters from 2014-2020 adventures for the new paradigm, but they might also just release updated versions of those adventures instead.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Are you referring to the Spelljammer MC or are they releasing another standalone MC before 2024?

It’s Volume 1 they intend to do many.

 

[NaturalZero]

The disneyfying bit is likely the fact you can be a twee little duergar as a PC. Or Fairy. Or rabbit-person

I guess if you literally just started playing DnD and never saw any of 4e or 3e, maybe this would almost, almost make sense. I remember Savage Species coming out over 20 years ago and letting people play furries and fairies, as well as anything else in the MM. This whole trendy to decry "Disneyfication" on this board comes off as an effortless way to have a vacuous criticism without any perspective at as to the game's history.

 

[John R Davis]

Yes but is it still "DND" or is it " something else" ( which I'm not saying is a bad thing, just maybe so different it isn't DND anymore).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I made no mention of it not being FR GH etc

I never said you did. But it's pretty clear that your complaint hinges on what you typically think of when you imagine a Duergar. Which almost undoubtedly comes from the Forgotten Realms' or Greyhawk's versions of the race. I was pointing out that the artwork was giving a different take on the race than the standard FR/Greyhawk version.

The disneyfying bit is likely the fact you can be a twee little duergar as a PC. Or Fairy. Or rabbit-person

. . . No. Just . . . no. Did we look at the image? What in that picture was "twee little duergar"? It's just a female duergar standing in a very neutral pose holding a staff with crystals and mushrooms on that. What the hell is "Disney" about that?

If you want to complain about a cutesy short person race in D&D . . . Gnomes are right there.

And D&D has had playable Fairies and animal races for multiple editions. This isn't a new thing. And if it isn't new, it can't be "Disneyfying."

I'm clearly not a great fan of anthropomorphic PC races.

. . . Which have been a part of D&D for decades. Thri-Kreen have been playable since 2e. Aarakocra have been playable since 1e. Mystara had Lupins and Rakasta. Spelljammer had the Giff and Hadozee. I could go on.

Just because you don't like something in D&D isn't an excuse to deny that it's been a major part of the game for decades and to start denigrating an additional race similar to older ones as "Disneyfying" the hobby. You don't have to be a fan of it . . . you just have to be fine with the people that do and not crap on their fun.

And you called me stupid twice. It's 2022 so I will take offence

I did not call you stupid. I don't recall ever calling anyone stupid on this site. I called the complaint stupid. Those are two very distinct sentences. Someone can make a stupid complaint without being stupid. I know that I've done this in the past before. It's a flaw of your argument, not necessarily a flaw with you. I am not attacking you, I am attacking your argument. If you take offense with this . . . you should probably change how you approach discussions like this.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes but is it still "DND" or is it " something else" ( which I'm not saying is a bad thing, just maybe so different it isn't DND anymore).

I think that whether or not something is "D&D" or "more/true D&D" is a stupid discussion almost solely reserved for when someone wants to denigrate a completely valid playstyle that they personally do not enjoy. And the only valid uses of it are when you change the core rules of a system so much or alter the core genre to the point where it's nearly unrecognizable when compared to the base game. Adding one or two non-standard races is not the end of D&D, and never will be. Especially when both races come from fairy tales, which are one of the main inspirations for the overall fantasy genre that led to the creation of D&D.

 

[John R Davis]

And let's not get started on the minotaur!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And let's not get started on the minotaur!

Dude, if you're going to cherrypick, I'm going to do the same.

Just look at the Bugbear. Or Goblin. Or Changeling. Or Aasimar. Or Yuan-Ti (Pureblood). All of those have new art in the Player section, and all of the art looks way more badass and scary than the previous art.

There. Over twice the examples you gave, and of the art doing the exact opposite of "Disneyfying".

D&D 5e has art. A lot of it. And a lot of different themes in it. This is a multiverse book, so it's going to represent the races that we've already seen in ways that we haven't seen before. That kind of what "Multiverse" means.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. (Actually, now that I think of it, that's not a very good phrase here. You're complaining about a problem that doesn't even exist. So, I guess you're making a mountain out of a flat piece of land.)

 

[John R Davis]

I did mention above how awesome the new goblin and Yuanti images where.

If you can't see that the " game" has got less gritty

And as a geologist.. oh never mind

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I did mention above how awesome the new goblin and Yuanti images where.

Yeah. So why are you saying "Disneyfied" as if it means something? If they're making a lot of pieces of artwork more scary/badass than previous iterations and like two/three slightly "lighter-toned" than previous artwork . . . isn't that proof that the game isn't being "Disneyfied" and just that there are different styles of art in 5e?

That Goblin art is the most vicious that we have had so far in 5e. As is the Yuan-Ti, Bugbear, and Changeling. Just because one Minotaur looks more like a cow than a bull and one Duergar is . . . female? (I really don't know what you're complaining about for it), that doesn't mean bull about a general trend in 5e art style or content theme.

 

[NaturalZero]

Yes but is it still "DND" or is it " something else" ( which I'm not saying is a bad thing, just maybe so different it isn't DND anymore).

It's literally the exact essence of DnD. Catfolk, lizardfolk, mantisfolk, minotaurs, frog people, etc, etc. Fairies and animal people have been a basic part of the game for over 40 years.

 

[beancounter]

With all of the new races (species, really), I'm surprised that they didn't include mixed races.

We've had half elves and half orcs for a long time. Why not other combos such as a half tortle/half aarakocra?

That would be one bad ass PC...

I mean, why should humans, orcs and elves be the only ones who've overcome racial barriers?

​

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's just Volo's and Mordenkainen's combined, missing a handful of more questionable choices, Orcs primarily. This book plus the Monster Manual is most every Mosnter in the edition.

I still don't see why they took the orc statblocks out, or why they didn't replace them with anything. And there are plenty of other humanoid statblocks they should have removed too, if their reasoning was consistent. Seems like they didn't commit either way.