Where the hell are all of the orc variants from Volo's? Also - I hate the way the book is organized (fiends).
I'm sitting here with my copy of Volo's in front of me and I genuinely can't find any Orc variants. There's just the Orc, though the Wildemount Orc and Eberron Orc also exist, but they're not much different.
Sorry I should have clarified. I meant the orc variants in the bestiary (not the player race option). Red Fang of Shagras, Claw of Luthic, etc. There were 4 or 5 variant orc types presented as monsters that you could use in place of or in addition to, the generic orc from the Monster Manual. Oddly, they did not remove the kobold variants, ogre variants, or hobgoblin variants from the bestiary.
I think the reason for leaving out the orc Volo variants is that they were related to members of the pantheon of orcish progenitor gods. Based on the flavor text of the MotM orc race, it sounds like they're trying to revise Gruumsh and the other orc deities into something more noble and less "problematic," and the variants don't fit that new image as they were very potent expressions of the evil these gods represented.
"Gruumsh and the other orc deities" are also specific to the Realms. This book is meant to be setting agnostic so would not have setting specific listings.
I can't for the life of me understand how people don't get this. The title of the book is Monsters of the MULTIVERSE. Why do people expect to find everything listed with the lore of Forgotten Realms?
I think the reason they expected those orc variants is because Volo's Guide to Monsters is no longer being sold and is now an unofficial book, so they expected replacements for the content in the book.
While they may want that content, this is not the book that it would or should be published in. That would be in a Forgotten Realms book.
They could have easily stripped the deity names away from those orcs and left us with some more choice. It's not an issue for me personally as I have Volo's unlocked, but why take away some really cool and interesting variant creature types?
I think the reason for leaving out the orc Volo variants is that they were related to members of the pantheon of orcish progenitor gods. Based on the flavor text of the MotM orc race, it sounds like they're trying to revise Gruumsh and the other orc deities into something more noble and less "problematic," and the variants don't fit that new image as they were very potent expressions of the evil these gods represented.
"Gruumsh and the other orc deities" are also specific to the Realms. This book is meant to be setting agnostic so would not have setting specific listings.
I can't for the life of me understand how people don't get this. The title of the book is Monsters of the MULTIVERSE. Why do people expect to find everything listed with the lore of Forgotten Realms?
I think the reason they expected those orc variants is because Volo's Guide to Monsters is no longer being sold and is now an unofficial book, so they expected replacements for the content in the book.
While they may want that content, this is not the book that it would or should be published in. That would be in a Forgotten Realms book.
They could have easily stripped the deity names away from those orcs and left us with some more choice. It's not an issue for me personally as I have Volo's unlocked, but why take away some really cool and interesting variant creature types?
I get that and I hope that we will see a Monstrous Compendium Volume Two: Forgotten Realms Creatures sometime in the near future.
I think the reason for leaving out the orc Volo variants is that they were related to members of the pantheon of orcish progenitor gods. Based on the flavor text of the MotM orc race, it sounds like they're trying to revise Gruumsh and the other orc deities into something more noble and less "problematic," and the variants don't fit that new image as they were very potent expressions of the evil these gods represented.
"Gruumsh and the other orc deities" are also specific to the Realms. This book is meant to be setting agnostic so would not have setting specific listings.
I can't for the life of me understand how people don't get this. The title of the book is Monsters of the MULTIVERSE. Why do people expect to find everything listed with the lore of Forgotten Realms?
I think the reason they expected those orc variants is because Volo's Guide to Monsters is no longer being sold and is now an unofficial book, so they expected replacements for the content in the book.
While they may want that content, this is not the book that it would or should be published in. That would be in a Forgotten Realms book.
They could have easily stripped the deity names away from those orcs and left us with some more choice. It's not an issue for me personally as I have Volo's unlocked, but why take away some really cool and interesting variant creature types?
I get that and I hope that we will see a Monstrous Compendium Volume Two: Forgotten Realms Creatures sometime in the near future.
If Wizards does intend to add the statistics to these creatures back into the game at a later date, they should be as transparent as possible about that.
In fact, they should also be trying to be as transparent as possible about a lot of the changes they are attempting to make to the game right now. Getting community feedback on intended changes, especially when it comes to how they handle the dissemination of lore, is important to something that is as community oriented as Dungeons and Dragons. I would, personally, be far less anxious about the the way that Monsters of the Multiverse is if Wizards had explicitly said before release that the book would not include any lore for the species options and that the lore for those options would be in upcoming, setting-specific supplements. I would understand that and would have been able to measure my expectations more accurately and been hyped for future releases. I feel like others who are dissatisfied with this book would be far less dissatisfied if that had been the case.
I think the reason for leaving out the orc Volo variants is that they were related to members of the pantheon of orcish progenitor gods. Based on the flavor text of the MotM orc race, it sounds like they're trying to revise Gruumsh and the other orc deities into something more noble and less "problematic," and the variants don't fit that new image as they were very potent expressions of the evil these gods represented.
"Gruumsh and the other orc deities" are also specific to the Realms. This book is meant to be setting agnostic so would not have setting specific listings.
I can't for the life of me understand how people don't get this. The title of the book is Monsters of the MULTIVERSE. Why do people expect to find everything listed with the lore of Forgotten Realms?
I think the reason they expected those orc variants is because Volo's Guide to Monsters is no longer being sold and is now an unofficial book, so they expected replacements for the content in the book.
While they may want that content, this is not the book that it would or should be published in. That would be in a Forgotten Realms book.
They could have easily stripped the deity names away from those orcs and left us with some more choice. It's not an issue for me personally as I have Volo's unlocked, but why take away some really cool and interesting variant creature types?
I get that and I hope that we will see a Monstrous Compendium Volume Two: Forgotten Realms Creatures sometime in the near future.
If Wizards does intend to add the statistics to these creatures back into the game at a later date, they should be as transparent as possible about that.
In fact, they should also be trying to be as transparent as possible about a lot of the changes they are attempting to make to the game right now. Getting community feedback on intended changes, especially when it comes to how they handle the dissemination of lore, is important to something that is as community oriented as Dungeons and Dragons. I would, personally, be far less anxious about the the way that Monsters of the Multiverse is if Wizards had explicitly said before release that the book would not include any lore for the species options and that the lore for those options would be in upcoming, setting-specific supplements. I would understand that and would have been able to measure my expectations more accurately and been hyped for future releases. I feel like others who are dissatisfied with this book would be far less dissatisfied if that had been the case.
Without a doubt WotC could do with a bit more transparency, but they have always failed in that aspect and I don't expect much to change. Unfortunately.
I have to admit widening my eyes when I saw hobgoblins as "Typically Lawful Neutral." I was like...what? I've always seen hobgoblins are basically uruk-hai from LotR, hardly the picture of "neutral." The idea of them being helpful and friendly is just anathema to me - I see them as highly-disciplined, highly-motivated, and highly-trained soldiers. Ruthless, remorseless, and vicious. I simply can't picture ex-fey, friendly hobgoblins being recruited en-masse by Azarr Kul in "Red Hand of Doom" or the like.
The Hobgoblin art is terrible as well -- a Hobgoblin bard...as the base representation of that particular monster...really? I also found it bizarre that Duergar Hammerers can be any alignment. They are dudes screwed into torture machines. I get what they are trying to do, but they did it without a lot of thought.
Gotta be honest I was hoping for some actual brand new playable races not this, in my opinion, batch of variances of old 5e content. That stuff should have already been carried over from 3.5. I find it canonically dishonest that between 3.5 and 5e all these wonderful race variants from past versions suddenly just seemingly don't exist??? What kind of garbage is that?
You gotta be trolling right… right? I'm not suggesting carrying the mechanical stuff over, yes, that WOULD be absurd but I genuinely loved all the flavor options for PC's and NPCs. I'm baffled as to your particular response. A little tweaking to bring them into line with 5e rules. It'd be fine. 😁 For the record, I don't like D&D for the rules, I like it for the wide variety of player options for the storytelling potential. The more the merrier.
Gotta be honest I was hoping for some actual brand new playable races not this, in my opinion, batch of variances of old 5e content. That stuff should have already been carried over from 3.5. I find it canonically dishonest that between 3.5 and 5e all these wonderful race variants from past versions suddenly just seemingly don't exist??? What kind of garbage is that?
You gotta be trolling right… right? I'm not suggesting carrying the mechanical stuff over, yes, that WOULD be absurd but I genuinely loved all the flavor options for PC's and NPCs. I'm baffled as to your particular response. A little tweaking to bring them into line with 5e rules. It'd be fine. 😁 For the record, I don't like D&D for the rules, I like it for the wide variety of player options for the storytelling potential. The more the merrier.
My apologies! I misunderstood! I would actually think a separate book with just Lore would be awesome..
A chapter about Elves, detailing the different kinds a bit and maybe a short story of a page or two.. That way you have base mechanics of Elves in one book and more lore and ideas for a character in the other..
I have to admit widening my eyes when I saw hobgoblins as "Typically Lawful Neutral." I was like...what? I've always seen hobgoblins are basically uruk-hai from LotR, hardly the picture of "neutral." The idea of them being helpful and friendly is just anathema to me - I see them as highly-disciplined, highly-motivated, and highly-trained soldiers. Ruthless, remorseless, and vicious. I simply can't picture ex-fey, friendly hobgoblins being recruited en-masse by Azarr Kul in "Red Hand of Doom" or the like.
The Hobgoblin art is terrible as well -- a Hobgoblin bard...as the base representation of that particular monster...really? I also found it bizarre that Duergar Hammerers can be any alignment. They are dudes screwed into torture machines. I get what they are trying to do, but they did it without a lot of thought.
I wouldn't call the art terrible. I think it looks quite good honestly. In the context of where it is and what it's supposed to represent though, it is a bit strange. Though I feel like that may have been an intentional decision on WotC's part to try and shake up the tone and preconceptions that people ususally look at Hobgoblins with. It's one of the few things I'll actually congratulate them about with this book. They did that quite well, considering the idea with the rework is that they are much more community oriented, bent towards forming strong bonds and stronger societies. At least that's the impression I get from the way the rework has been talked about outside the book. Which honestly... I shouldn't have to read outside material to understand that. It should be clearer in the book itself.
Character creation on D&D Beyond is a huge mess right now. There's no way I can even tell my players something simple like "just use the new Mordenkainen's version" because most of the original races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.) aren't included in the update. They can't even sort by sourcebook because (unlike many other D&D Beyond interfaces), you can't choose more than one sourcebook as an option. You can only sort that list one book at a time. That means I have to create a comprehensive list for players of which race "version" is allowed in my campaign. (Why weren't the "original" races included in this update? That seems inexcusable.)
On a balance note: Are kobolds overpowered now? (That's a question I never thought I'd write.) A party of Kobolds could cycle "Draconic Cry" uses through multiple battles, keeping the entire party at advantage nearly the entire time.
On a balance note: Are kobolds overpowered now? (That's a question I never thought I'd write.) A party of Kobolds could cycle "Draconic Cry" uses through multiple battles, keeping the entire party at advantage nearly the entire time.
That seems impossible, since it only lasts 1 round, only has radius 10 feet (with range Self), and only refreshes on a long rest. A part of 4 level 5 kobolds has 12 cries total for 6-8 battles which, per the DMG, should take something like 18-24 rounds total, and on top of that against enemies which aren't clustered up near the party, the number you can reasonably bean with it drops precipitously. Plus, since it's on a bonus action, it can't be Readied, so it's not like the kobolds can prep it for when they get rushed.
Gotta be honest I was hoping for some actual brand new playable races not this, in my opinion, batch of variances of old 5e content. That stuff should have already been carried over from 3.5. I find it canonically dishonest that between 3.5 and 5e all these wonderful race variants from past versions suddenly just seemingly don't exist??? What kind of garbage is that?
You gotta be trolling right… right? I'm not suggesting carrying the mechanical stuff over, yes, that WOULD be absurd but I genuinely loved all the flavor options for PC's and NPCs. I'm baffled as to your particular response. A little tweaking to bring them into line with 5e rules. It'd be fine. 😁 For the record, I don't like D&D for the rules, I like it for the wide variety of player options for the storytelling potential. The more the merrier.
As for the mechanical stuff I would love to see previous game versions in D&D Beyond app, open the app choose which version you want and all the rules are implemented in similar fashion to the 5e ruleset funtionality in-app. Ease of use stuff if you know what I mean.
Edit: It would certainly be a monumental task but worth it imo.
Character creation on D&D Beyond is a huge mess right now. There's no way I can even tell my players something simple like "just use the new Mordenkainen's version" because most of the original races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.) aren't included in the update. They can't even sort by sourcebook because (unlike many other D&D Beyond interfaces), you can't choose more than one sourcebook as an option. You can only sort that list one book at a time. That means I have to create a comprehensive list for players of which race "version" is allowed in my campaign. (Why weren't the "original" races included in this update? That seems inexcusable.)
On a balance note: Are kobolds overpowered now? (That's a question I never thought I'd write.) A party of Kobolds could cycle "Draconic Cry" uses through multiple battles, keeping the entire party at advantage nearly the entire time.
It's kind of hidden, but you are able to change which sourcebooks you share with your players in a menu under your campaign. So you can simplify the character creation process by temporarily removing Volo's and Tome of Foes from the list of shared sourcebooks. Doesn't excuse the fact that they need to find a way to sort these new versions more usefully in the character creator, but it'll help for the moment if you just want to use the new versions of older races.
Character creation on D&D Beyond is a huge mess right now. There's no way I can even tell my players something simple like "just use the new Mordenkainen's version" because most of the original races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.) aren't included in the update. They can't even sort by sourcebook because (unlike many other D&D Beyond interfaces), you can't choose more than one sourcebook as an option. You can only sort that list one book at a time. That means I have to create a comprehensive list for players of which race "version" is allowed in my campaign. (Why weren't the "original" races included in this update? That seems inexcusable.)
On a balance note: Are kobolds overpowered now? (That's a question I never thought I'd write.) A party of Kobolds could cycle "Draconic Cry" uses through multiple battles, keeping the entire party at advantage nearly the entire time.
It's kind of hidden, but you are able to change which sourcebooks you share with your players in a menu under your campaign. So you can simplify the character creation process by temporarily removing Volo's and Tome of Foes from the list of shared sourcebooks. Doesn't excuse the fact that they need to find a way to sort these new versions more usefully in the character creator, but it'll help for the moment if you just want to use the new versions of older races.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would turn off the ability to select certain other race sub types, such as some of the tieflings for example? The ones that people who didn't have and can no longer buy MTOF are complaining they can't get?
Character creation on D&D Beyond is a huge mess right now. There's no way I can even tell my players something simple like "just use the new Mordenkainen's version" because most of the original races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.) aren't included in the update. They can't even sort by sourcebook because (unlike many other D&D Beyond interfaces), you can't choose more than one sourcebook as an option. You can only sort that list one book at a time. That means I have to create a comprehensive list for players of which race "version" is allowed in my campaign. (Why weren't the "original" races included in this update? That seems inexcusable.
It's kind of hidden, but you are able to change which sourcebooks you share with your players in a menu under your campaign. So you can simplify the character creation process by temporarily removing Volo's and Tome of Foes from the list of shared sourcebooks. Doesn't excuse the fact that they need to find a way to sort these new versions more usefully in the character creator, but it'll help for the moment if you just want to use the new versions of older races.
Character creation on D&D Beyond is a huge mess right now. There's no way I can even tell my players something simple like "just use the new Mordenkainen's version" because most of the original races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.) aren't included in the update. They can't even sort by sourcebook because (unlike many other D&D Beyond interfaces), you can't choose more than one sourcebook as an option. You can only sort that list one book at a time. That means I have to create a comprehensive list for players of which race "version" is allowed in my campaign. (Why weren't the "original" races included in this update? That seems inexcusable.)
On a balance note: Are kobolds overpowered now? (That's a question I never thought I'd write.) A party of Kobolds could cycle "Draconic Cry" uses through multiple battles, keeping the entire party at advantage nearly the entire time.
It's kind of hidden, but you are able to change which sourcebooks you share with your players in a menu under your campaign. So you can simplify the character creation process by temporarily removing Volo's and Tome of Foes from the list of shared sourcebooks. Doesn't excuse the fact that they need to find a way to sort these new versions more usefully in the character creator, but it'll help for the moment if you just want to use the new versions of older races.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would turn off the ability to select certain other race sub types, such as some of the tieflings for example? The ones that people who didn't have and can no longer buy MTOF are complaining they can't get?
The following quoted text is from the sharing page "Blocking a source will hide compendium content to prevent players from reading it unless they own it. No options or content will be removed from other tools such as the character builder, character sheet, or encounter builder." so it will do nothing on blocking character building.
Ah, well. I'll keep my fingers crossed that DDB devs have this as a high priority on their task list and it won't take too long. Because man...it's pretty janky atm.
I apologize if this question has been asked. Since tabaxi now can be small or medium in size, has anyone found an updated height/weight chart pertinent to Monsters of the Multiverse?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Let the Mists surround you...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry I should have clarified. I meant the orc variants in the bestiary (not the player race option). Red Fang of Shagras, Claw of Luthic, etc. There were 4 or 5 variant orc types presented as monsters that you could use in place of or in addition to, the generic orc from the Monster Manual. Oddly, they did not remove the kobold variants, ogre variants, or hobgoblin variants from the bestiary.
They could have easily stripped the deity names away from those orcs and left us with some more choice. It's not an issue for me personally as I have Volo's unlocked, but why take away some really cool and interesting variant creature types?
I get that and I hope that we will see a Monstrous Compendium Volume Two: Forgotten Realms Creatures sometime in the near future.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If Wizards does intend to add the statistics to these creatures back into the game at a later date, they should be as transparent as possible about that.
In fact, they should also be trying to be as transparent as possible about a lot of the changes they are attempting to make to the game right now. Getting community feedback on intended changes, especially when it comes to how they handle the dissemination of lore, is important to something that is as community oriented as Dungeons and Dragons. I would, personally, be far less anxious about the the way that Monsters of the Multiverse is if Wizards had explicitly said before release that the book would not include any lore for the species options and that the lore for those options would be in upcoming, setting-specific supplements. I would understand that and would have been able to measure my expectations more accurately and been hyped for future releases. I feel like others who are dissatisfied with this book would be far less dissatisfied if that had been the case.
Without a doubt WotC could do with a bit more transparency, but they have always failed in that aspect and I don't expect much to change. Unfortunately.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The Hobgoblin art is terrible as well -- a Hobgoblin bard...as the base representation of that particular monster...really? I also found it bizarre that Duergar Hammerers can be any alignment. They are dudes screwed into torture machines. I get what they are trying to do, but they did it without a lot of thought.
My apologies! I misunderstood! I would actually think a separate book with just Lore would be awesome..
A chapter about Elves, detailing the different kinds a bit and maybe a short story of a page or two.. That way you have base mechanics of Elves in one book and more lore and ideas for a character in the other..
I wouldn't call the art terrible. I think it looks quite good honestly. In the context of where it is and what it's supposed to represent though, it is a bit strange. Though I feel like that may have been an intentional decision on WotC's part to try and shake up the tone and preconceptions that people ususally look at Hobgoblins with. It's one of the few things I'll actually congratulate them about with this book. They did that quite well, considering the idea with the rework is that they are much more community oriented, bent towards forming strong bonds and stronger societies. At least that's the impression I get from the way the rework has been talked about outside the book. Which honestly... I shouldn't have to read outside material to understand that. It should be clearer in the book itself.
I’m pretty sure that’s the thing that they’re working on in the general features project they’ve seen working on.
My first two impressions:
That seems impossible, since it only lasts 1 round, only has radius 10 feet (with range Self), and only refreshes on a long rest. A part of 4 level 5 kobolds has 12 cries total for 6-8 battles which, per the DMG, should take something like 18-24 rounds total, and on top of that against enemies which aren't clustered up near the party, the number you can reasonably bean with it drops precipitously. Plus, since it's on a bonus action, it can't be Readied, so it's not like the kobolds can prep it for when they get rushed.
As for the mechanical stuff I would love to see previous game versions in D&D Beyond app, open the app choose which version you want and all the rules are implemented in similar fashion to the 5e ruleset funtionality in-app. Ease of use stuff if you know what I mean.
Edit: It would certainly be a monumental task but worth it imo.
It's kind of hidden, but you are able to change which sourcebooks you share with your players in a menu under your campaign. So you can simplify the character creation process by temporarily removing Volo's and Tome of Foes from the list of shared sourcebooks. Doesn't excuse the fact that they need to find a way to sort these new versions more usefully in the character creator, but it'll help for the moment if you just want to use the new versions of older races.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would turn off the ability to select certain other race sub types, such as some of the tieflings for example?
The ones that people who didn't have and can no longer buy MTOF are complaining they can't get?
Thank you! Good suggestion!
The following quoted text is from the sharing page "Blocking a source will hide compendium content to prevent players from reading it unless they own it. No options or content will be removed from other tools such as the character builder, character sheet, or encounter builder." so it will do nothing on blocking character building.
Ah, well. I'll keep my fingers crossed that DDB devs have this as a high priority on their task list and it won't take too long. Because man...it's pretty janky atm.
I apologize if this question has been asked. Since tabaxi now can be small or medium in size, has anyone found an updated height/weight chart pertinent to Monsters of the Multiverse?
Let the Mists surround you...