D&D 5E Zooming In On Monsters of the Multiverse [UPDATED!]

Earlier, WotC announced Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse, a new D&D compilation of monster material from previous products updated to a new format. These screen grabs are as good as I could get them. They're not terribly clear, but you can make more out than in the original images.

The screenshots show the original entry in Volo's Guide to Monsters next to the new entry in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse.


Screen Shot 2021-09-27 at 12.29.19 AM.png


Screen Shot 2021-09-27 at 12.30.30 AM.png

Screen Shot 2021-09-27 at 12.31.47 AM.png




UPDATE -- a cleaned up version of the War Priest has appeared on imgur.

1nFCAVj.png
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Dollars to donuts they cut the Demon Lords and Archdevils, along with any other named characters. They did specifically say that the focus is on monsters that could be found anywhere in the multiverse, which I’m sure means generic enemies only.
That seems to be the consensus around here, so I'm glad I'm not the only one suspecting this. If they do cut the unique creatures, and they update all the other VGtM and MToF stat blocks, that gives around 30, or slightly more, monster stat blocks from other sources for this book. I sure hope they do, as that would turn it from a border-line buy to a likely buy just from the convenience of not having everything so scattered. Basically, it becomes a MM2 then.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
So it seems that this statblock is being used in The Wild Beyond The Witchlight. I don't want to read it in depth, picked it up for my eldest kid to run for me and others, but I can't find anything that says that the combat-magic-as-abilities can be affected by Counterspell anymore.

Like I said I don't want to delve too deeply into the book, but has Counterspell become of limited utility for PCs and basically a spell that it primarily meant to be used against the characters? Or is there some sort of disclamer "all of these should be considered spells, determine level via method X" somewhere?
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
I find it narratively limiting to have all NPCs constrained within the PC rules.

Just as trying to create a physics simulation using the rules it is both a needless and futile endeavour.

It makes for such a small and homogeneous world if there are only 13 types of people.

The alternative is that everyone in the world can have unique attributes and abilities. The latter sounds much better to me.

3e tried the former even going so far as to say what levelled NPCs can be in a town of a given size. But even that can be changed by the DM just deciding on the size of the town. So now there needs to be a rule on what size towns can be. And where they are. And there could even be rules on where in the world there can be forests and ruins and gems and what monsters and how many can be where and on and on. And for what? It will all ultimately come down to the DM decides so just let them decide to have NPCs have cool powers if they want.

And conversely the PCs get to have cool powers the NPCs don't have.
 

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
FYI I bet there will be lots of testing and chances for feedback. Keep your notes and comments dry.
Well probably not for this book, it is close to done or is done.

But, this part of a process of reviving all the monsters. I do wonder if they would make any major changes between this and the revised MM. Years will separate them. But there is that whole compatibility thing.
 

darjr

I crit!
Well probably not for this book, it is close to done or is done.

But, this part of a process of reviving all the monsters. I do wonder if they would make any major changes between this and the revised MM. Years will separate them. But there is that whole compatibility thing.
Ope! Yea you are right! Wrong thread!
 


Hussar

Legend
Because of this, I think it behooves us as players, and those who control the D&D IP as stewards of these rules and settings, to understand when our actions may take from others the ability to have the 5e D&D experience that they enjoy having. If a change would result in that, I think it needs to be very seriously examined whether that change is in fact the best direction to take if we want to remain inclusive with the game.
Heh.

Where were you ten years ago when 4e players got hurled under the bus in favor of playing D&D "the right way"?

And, frankly, using the word "inclusive" here is really offensive. When we talk about making the game inclusive, we don't mean people who want to play in a certain style. When we talk about making the game inclusive, it's referring to people who actually suffer real world problems that are being perpetuated and frequently celebrated by the language in the game.

I want NPC's to work like PC's is not something inclusivity should be concerned with.
 
Last edited:

I find it narratively limiting to have all NPCs constrained within the PC rules.

Just as trying to create a physics simulation using the rules it is both a needless and futile endeavour.

It makes for such a small and homogeneous world if there are only 13 types of people.

The alternative is that everyone in the world can have unique attributes and abilities. The latter sounds much better to me.

3e tried the former even going so far as to say what levelled NPCs can be in a town of a given size. But even that can be changed by the DM just deciding on the size of the town. So now there needs to be a rule on what size towns can be. And where they are. And there could even be rules on where in the world there can be forests and ruins and gems and what monsters and how many can be where and on and on. And for what? It will all ultimately come down to the DM decides so just let them decide to have NPCs have cool powers if they want.

And conversely the PCs get to have cool powers the NPCs don't have.
personally, I want foes to be diet pc similar enough that we are clearly the same object in universe but way less moving parts and ideal none can get powers the other can't as that feels unfair for some strange reason.
 

Lord Shark

Explorer
I find it narratively limiting to have all NPCs constrained within the PC rules.

Just as trying to create a physics simulation using the rules it is both a needless and futile endeavour.

It makes for such a small and homogeneous world if there are only 13 types of people.

The alternative is that everyone in the world can have unique attributes and abilities. The latter sounds much better to me.

3e tried the former even going so far as to say what levelled NPCs can be in a town of a given size. But even that can be changed by the DM just deciding on the size of the town. So now there needs to be a rule on what size towns can be. And where they are. And there could even be rules on where in the world there can be forests and ruins and gems and what monsters and how many can be where and on and on. And for what? It will all ultimately come down to the DM decides so just let them decide to have NPCs have cool powers if they want.

And conversely the PCs get to have cool powers the NPCs don't have.

Likewise, ever since 3E I've soured on the idea that everything in the universe with supernatural powers has to express them in terms of the same spell list. Say an angel, a wizard, a dragon sorcerer, a firebending monk, and a fire elemental all cast wall of fire ... and despite the fact they're wildly diverse creatures drawing on different sources of power, the spell works exactly the same way and has the same effects for all of them. There's so much potential for variety and surprise that gets lost when everything has to be a spell.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
This...
actually every power being called differently and being slightly differently was a pita.
Knowing that an npc casts fireball was enough.
That was my first thought when I read Kelek in dragon+
Why didn't they just say:
Reaction: Kelek casts shield (level 1)
Action: Kelek casts fireball (lvl 5) recharge 4 - 6?
As long as the give the relavant infor about the spell so it doesn't need to be looked up, that would be great.
 


Because that way I need to stop the combat, reach for the PHB, flip through to the preferable because it doesn't do the job.

Or probably you try to really read my post and notice that I said:

"... casts thunderwave at level x and does..."
Which means that after "does... " there will be a short desription. I thought it would be obvious but I think that was aking a bit much of you. So I am deeply sorry.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
personally, I want foes to be diet pc similar enough that we are clearly the same object in universe but way less moving parts and ideal none can get powers the other can't as that feels unfair for some strange reason.

Do you buy supplements?

What is the impact in the world when you add subclasses and spells from a supplement?

Do people start learning those classes? Are people retroactively members of those classes?

Why can't there just have been those people in the world all along even though there weren't PC rules for them yet?

As far as fairness goes, isn't it also unfair then that NPCs get to start the game at high levels even if every PC needs to start at a low level? For fairness, shouldn't each NPC need to go on adventures and fight adversaries just like the PCs do?
 

Do you buy supplements?

What is the impact in the world when you add subclasses and spells from a supplement?

Do people start learning those classes? Are people retroactively members of those classes?

Why can't there just have been those people in the world all along even though there weren't PC rules for them yet?

As far as fairness goes, isn't it also unfair then that NPCs get to start the game at high levels even if every PC needs to start at a low level? For fairness, shouldn't each NPC need to go on adventures and fight adversaries just like the PCs do?
it strikes me as unfair from the players perspective and takes me out from the universe.

well if all necromancers are wizards then logically they should be similar at similar levels correct?
I do not need them perfect just the parts that make them feel right.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
it strikes me as unfair from the players perspective and takes me out from the universe.

well if all necromancers are wizards then logically they should be similar at similar levels correct?
I do not need them perfect just the parts that make them feel right.

I just see it as (usually) them having a subclass that just isn't in a PC rule yet.

I like to conceptualize them as similar but I'm fine with them all having their own powers. When we get a new subclass in a new book I think of it as always being in the world. It's just a PC option now.

There are plenty of races who live in the world too even if there aren't PC options for them. I don't think that's unfair either.
 

I just see it as (usually) them having a subclass that just isn't in a PC rule yet.

I like to conceptualize them as similar but I'm fine with them all having their own powers. When we get a new subclass in a new book I think of it as always being in the world. It's just a PC option now.

There are plenty of races who live in the world too even if there aren't PC options for them. I don't think that's unfair either.
it depends on if we ever get the subclass.

not all races would work as pc race plus who is asking to play a beholder?
 

kae

First Post
what is this book? i really don't get it.
is it all old monsters, but "updated"? updated to fit what then exactly? and why? if its not that or more, what then? I'm lost..
thanks!
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
what is this book? i really don't get it.
is it all old monsters, but "updated"? updated to fit what then exactly? and why? if its not that or more, what then? I'm lost..
thanks!
If the old monster had the Spellcasting ability, that feature is now shortened a ton and put in the Actions section of the monster stat block. Quite a few of them also have at least one of their spells written out in the Actions section, so you don't have to go to the PHB to look up what the spell does (and some of them have slightly different mechanics/names from the PC versions).

They haven't stated what other updates they'll do to other monsters, but this book also has reprints and updated versions of non-PHB, non-setting-specific 30 races to match the format of newer races (probably removing racial Ability Score Increases, letting innate spellcasters use their own spell slots to cast their spells, etc).

That's basically what the book is. Reprinted and updated monsters and races that weren't in the PHB.
 

Omand

Adventurer
what is this book? i really don't get it.
is it all old monsters, but "updated"? updated to fit what then exactly? and why? if its not that or more, what then? I'm lost..
thanks!
As near as we can tell at this time, Monsters of the Multiverse will be a collection and reprinting of the bestiary sections of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Volo's Guide to Monsters. There may also be some monsters collected into the book from the various adventures WotC has released so far for 5E where monsters were presented in the books, but not in the Monster Manual.

In addition, Monsters of the Multiverse will also contain the culture/race/lineage information for over 30 playable races drawn from the books WotC has released so far. These races are supposed to be the "non-setting specific" races. Exactly which races will be collected here is not known 100%, but various theories have appeared earlier in the thread.

There are hints from D&D Celebration interviews that there will be some revisions to at least some of the information presented. We know for certain that the monsters are going to appear in a revised presentation format and some examples were show on the D&D Celebration finale. How many changes will be made, and to how many creatures is not known.

Based upon the D&D Celebration interview, it appears this new format is what we will see in all books going forwards for creature/monster presentation, including for the revised Monster Manual for the 50th Anniversary in 2024.

Beyond this we do not have exact information. Lots of speculation, but not much hard data.

Cheers :)
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
it depends on if we ever get the subclass.

not all races would work as pc race plus who is asking to play a beholder?

What do you mean if we ever get the subclass?

If a subclass option becomes available in a new book was there never anyone in the world who was of that subclass before? And now if there suddenly are people who are taking that for the first time, how does that happen?

In a world where NPCs are only ever created with PC rules I don't see how new options could be introduced without completing rewriting the campaign world.

Not all races, but there are certainly some races that could be PC races which don't have rules for them yet. We've gotten many new races as PC options since 5e came out and yet those were all available to be NPCs before they were options.

Was that unfair?
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top