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.

"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)

The online D&D Celebration event, which has been running all weekend, comes to a close with The Future of D&D, a panel featuring WotC's Ray Winninger, Liz Schuh, Chris Perkins, and Jeremy Crawford, hosted by Elle Osili-Wood. D&D is exploring the multiverse Revisiting classic settings. 1st of...

www.enworld.org

---

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

 

[TerraDave]

They are breaking up the monster groups.

So no "demons" section. Presumably no devils, animals, NPCs sections...each of these gets its own separate entry.

 

[rooneg]

Interesting, they are using a lot of the Magic: the Gathering card art for previously unillustrated stat blocks.

I mean, that Bard is MTG art, but it was MTG art from the Forgotten Realms MTG set, so it doesn’t really surprise me that they’re reusing it for D&D stuff.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, that Bard is MTG art, but it was MTG art from the Forgotten Realms MTG set, so it doesn’t really surprise me that they’re reusing it for D&D stuff.

I mean, yes, but it's cool to see it get repurposed.

 

[Hussar]

Isn't this the way 4E set up its monsters?

Heh, funny that.

At the time, all we heard was hue and cry over how they were ruining monsters. How could you possibly have a Marilyth that doesn't have Animate Dead!?!?!?! They've ruined D&D in their quest to make a D&D MMO.

My irony meter is going off.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There's always Grippli.

Sure, I’d love to see them updated to 5e.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think this sort of thing was shot down pretty hard in the Next playtest. I‘m not sure if they are thinking the tastes of the current demographic have changed or if they are just testing the waters to see what people will think.

(Not a fan myself especially as a player, since I expect to theoretically be able to acquire a reasonable approximation of any special abilities an NPC demonstrates.)

 

[Omand]

They are breaking up the monster groups.

So no "demons" section. Presumably no devils, animals, NPCs sections...each of these gets its own separate entry.

Still processing this change myself.

I have always liked having the demons, devils, dragons, dinosaurs, etc. togther (interesting that the D section had a lot of groups). I found it easy to use, especially if the book had good search tools.

That said, 5E has not been noted for good Tables of Contents or Indexes, so this might work out better.

I will have to see to judge how the end product works out.

Cheers

 

[Demetrios1453]

Sure, I’d love to see them updated to 5e.

The were, at least as monsters, in Candlekeep Adventures.

 

[Demetrios1453]

They are breaking up the monster groups.

So no "demons" section. Presumably no devils, animals, NPCs sections...each of these gets its own separate entry.

I read that as that they weren't going to have appendices for regular animals and NPCs, but mix them in with the main text of the bestiary, but until we get more info, I could be very well misinterpreting it. If they do flat out alphabetize everything individually, however, it's really going to be hard to place flavor texts for related groups. They could, of course, just make the entries "Demon: Hezrou" in order to keep such groups together.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The were, at least as monsters, in Candlekeep Adventures.

I think it’s pretty obvious that monster stats aren’t the same thing as a playable race, which is what I expressed a desire to see.