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

Demetrios1453 · Sep 30, 2021

Charlaquin said:
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.

Blue · Sep 30, 2021

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 · Sep 30, 2021

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 · Sep 30, 2021

darjr said:
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 · Sep 30, 2021

TerraDave said:
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!

TerraDave · Sep 30, 2021

darjr said:
Ope! Yea you are right! Wrong thread!

There is a lot of them right now, easy to get confused.

Hussar · Sep 30, 2021

Sword of Spirit said:
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.

Mind of tempest · Sep 30, 2021

ad_hoc said:
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 · Sep 30, 2021

ad_hoc said:
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 · Sep 30, 2021

UngeheuerLich said:
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.