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.



log in or register to remove this ad

log in or register to remove this ad


5e Freelancer
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.
Last edited:


5e Freelancer
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.


5e Freelancer
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.)

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


5e Freelancer
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.

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.
Last edited:


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

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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.

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement