My only gripe about the new book is that it doesn't include all the orc variants that were in Volo's. I'm in favor of all the player race changes and updates to the stat blocks, but I do miss my orcs.
Edit: And I have a feeling that MMM, and to a lesser extent Tasha’s, may actually be the first books released that is 2024 compliant and won’t need to be abandoned and rereleased under a different name.
I think this is mostly true, but I think that things like the optional class features and such from Tasha's will be rolled into the new PHB as just part of the classes, while the subclasses and stuff will remain separate. Obviously the race changes of Tasha's and MMM will be in the PHB as well.
I agree that most if not all the Tasha’s optional class features will be incorporated. But I think the PHB survey was conducted after Tasha’s so who knows. They may revamp problem classes and class features and not include some of the Tasha’s options.
Edit: And I have a feeling that MMM, and to a lesser extent Tasha’s, may actually be the first books released that is 2024 compliant and won’t need to be abandoned and rereleased under a different name.
I think this is mostly true, but I think that things like the optional class features and such from Tasha's will be rolled into the new PHB as just part of the classes, while the subclasses and stuff will remain separate. Obviously the race changes of Tasha's and MMM will be in the PHB as well.
I agree that most if not all the Tasha’s optional class features will be incorporated. But I think the PHB survey was conducted after Tasha’s so who knows. They may revamp problem classes and class features and not include some of the Tasha’s options.
They have made a big deal about the new rules being fully backwards compatible, So PHB classes etc will all be fully usable alongside any changes that are made in the new edition. In fact this gives greater flexibility of party, one player deciding to take legacy Warlock and another New edition cleric.
Tashas, Xanathars, all the campaign settings and books I expect to be fully incorporated with at most online FAQ's for any clashes in rules, but that does not indicate full backwards compatibility so I am expecting changes to be far more subtle in various ways. Possibly they will incorporate all the new spells into the new PHB.
They have made a big deal about the new rules being fully backwards compatible, So PHB classes etc will all be fully usable alongside any changes that are made in the new edition. In fact this gives greater flexibility of party, one player deciding to take legacy Warlock and another New edition cleric.
This doesn't mean they'll be equal, though. If the 5.5e classes power creep enough, they'll effectively render the old versions obsolete.
And to be clear, if the designers hit their mark and successfully rework these things to better fit the way people actually play, then classes like the Warlock that rely on short rests absolutely will get stronger compared to their current versions. This is the goal, not some avoidable side effect. The "technical" power level could stay exactly the same, but the practical power level is meant to shift dramatically, at least as I understand it.
Then, whatever reasons exist for delisting VGtM and MToF will also apply to the core rulebooks.
Edit: And I have a feeling that MMM, and to a lesser extent Tasha’s, may actually be the first books released that is 2024 compliant and won’t need to be abandoned and rereleased under a different name.
I think this is mostly true, but I think that things like the optional class features and such from Tasha's will be rolled into the new PHB as just part of the classes, while the subclasses and stuff will remain separate. Obviously the race changes of Tasha's and MMM will be in the PHB as well.
I agree that most if not all the Tasha’s optional class features will be incorporated. But I think the PHB survey was conducted after Tasha’s so who knows. They may revamp problem classes and class features and not include some of the Tasha’s options.
They have made a big deal about the new rules being fully backwards compatible, So PHB classes etc will all be fully usable alongside any changes that are made in the new edition. In fact this gives greater flexibility of party, one player deciding to take legacy Warlock and another New edition cleric.
Tashas, Xanathars, all the campaign settings and books I expect to be fully incorporated with at most online FAQ's for any clashes in rules, but that does not indicate full backwards compatibility so I am expecting changes to be far more subtle in various ways. Possibly they will incorporate all the new spells into the new PHB.
I’m sure it will be backwards compatible. But that doesn’t mean we won’t see significant changes. I’m not expecting that, but take the Ranger for example. There were issues with the PHB Ranger so they releases Optional/Replacement features in Tasha’s. Who’s to say that they won’t completely rework the 2024 PHB Ranger so that only a few or no PHB/Tasha’s features are in it. You probably can still pick up current 5E subclasses or the new 2024 PHB subclasses at level 3, but the core class could be wholly different. Again, I’m not anticipating anything that drastic but you never know.
I am anticipating that come 2025, 2026, or whenever, new Campaign Settings will be released that will have the lore MMM is missing on monsters and PC races, as well as lore that will not be on the 2024 PHB or MM for that particular setting. I believe they mentioned more campaign settings will be coming out, old and completely new and I’m sure they will fall under the 2024 design philosophy, even if they come out prior to 2024
And books like Xanathar’s will go the way of VGtM and MToF when their replacement comes out.
Edit: And I have a feeling that MMM, and to a lesser extent Tasha’s, may actually be the first books released that is 2024 compliant and won’t need to be abandoned and rereleased under a different name.
I think this is mostly true, but I think that things like the optional class features and such from Tasha's will be rolled into the new PHB as just part of the classes, while the subclasses and stuff will remain separate. Obviously the race changes of Tasha's and MMM will be in the PHB as well.
I agree that most if not all the Tasha’s optional class features will be incorporated. But I think the PHB survey was conducted after Tasha’s so who knows. They may revamp problem classes and class features and not include some of the Tasha’s options.
Tashas, Xanathars, all the campaign settings and books I expect to be fully incorporated with at most online FAQ's for any clashes in rules, but that does not indicate full backwards compatibility so I am expecting changes to be far more subtle in various ways. Possibly they will incorporate all the new spells into the new PHB.
I am anticipating that come 2025, 2026, or whenever, new Campaign Settings will be released that will have the lore MMM is missing on monsters and PC races, as well as lore that will not be on the 2024 PHB or MM for that particular setting. I believe they mentioned more campaign settings will be coming out, old and completely new and I’m sure they will fall under the 2024 design philosophy, even if they come out prior to 2024
I hope so, I always love reading about D&D lore. Maybe we'll get more stuff on Netheril!
Also, more campaign settings are always neat.
But I don't want to get my hopes up... We can't ever be completely sure about what WoTC might do.
Several monsters, including demon lords and archdevils are now, inexplicably, weaker in MMoM than in MtoF even though there is clearly some powercreep since then via Tasha's.
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
Redundancy is a ridiculous claim to make considering they still sell most every book for every previous edition of D&D. If what you said were true, then it wouldn't make any sense to sell the original Ravenloft adventure or White Plume Mountain where we have Curse of Strahd and Tales from the Yawning Portal.
If we are talking economics, then why did they axe two $30 books for a single $30 book? That is the very definition of redundancy. MotM is an intentional and less profitable redundancy. So, I cannot believe that redundancy is the reason they retired them.
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
Redundancy is a ridiculous claim to make considering they still sell most every book for every previous edition of D&D. If what you said were true, then it wouldn't make any sense to sell the original Ravenloft adventure or White Plume Mountain where we have Curse of Strahd and Tales from the Yawning Portal.
If we are talking economics, then why did they axe two $30 books for a single $30 book? That is the very definition of redundancy. MotM is an intentional and less profitable redundancy. So, I cannot believe that redundancy is the reason they retired them.
It's not economics, it's politics that drove this decision. They were taking a lot of flak over the past decades for cultural insensitivities that existed in a lot of their products. They decided to cut that off at the pass and scrub those details from their books as to allow them to fit a political dogma.
Ideology not economics created this situation.
Your argument falls apart, however, if you apply a little bit of common sense. They do not print and sell corporeal editions of D&D nor do they sell those older books on D&D Beyond - when you purchase them specifically from places that make it clear they are obsolete content. As such, there is no risk of confusion to someone purchasing them about what you get.
As for two being worth more than one, again, let’s apply some common sense to the situation. D&D is slowly rolling out it’s new method of character and monster creation - a $30 book that is in line with its other modern monsters is worth more to them than two $30 books that utilise an obsolete template. Not to mention that this might get folks to spend $30 to get a lot of races, instead of just saying “eh, I am interested in Centaur, but not in Ravnica, so I will either not buy the physical book or only spend the $2 on Beyond in order to purchase if.” More is not always more when you are making a business decision.
“But that still does not account for the missing lore—clearly that proves my point,” I anticipate your response to be… Well, hypothetical answer, MMM already has a lot of content—lots of monsters and races are reprinted in the book. Additional lore, especially with how long some of the lore writing can be, means more pages, which pushes up production costs that would be passed along to the consumer. This is a product designed to be one’s second big purchase after the PHB/MM/DMG - someone who is invested in D&D a bit, but still new enough that keeping product costs low encourages them to expand from the base. Additionally, it is aimed at homebrewers who make their own lore (or are more likely to look up more complete lore in other sources) - recall that most premade adventurer books contain the lore about the towns and people you meet, so players who are not homebrewing already have the lore content they need. If what you said was their primary motivation, they would have done major overhauls to how the lore was written (which they have been doing in other aspects of the game), not simply condensed everything for the reprints.
As I said in my first post, there are going to be folks, like yourself, who are angry about non-mechanical changes Wizards is making and who are trying to see some kind of agenda in everything Wizards does.
In my mind MMM is book 1 of the "Next Evolution" of D&D, with the three core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM) coming in 2024. So it doesn't matter if it's redundancy, profits, whatever, they chose a new direction and they are driving toward it. With all the non-PHB races out of the way any new supplemental books (adventures, campaign settings, etc) can focus more on lore, subclasses, unique monsters and/or spells, and that type of stuff.
In my mind MMM is book 1 of the "Next Evolution" of D&D, with the three core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM) coming in 2024. So it doesn't matter if it's redundancy, profits, whatever, they chose a new direction and they are driving toward it. With all the non-PHB races out of the way any new supplemental books (adventures, campaign settings, etc) can focus more on lore, subclasses, unique monsters and/or spells, and that type of stuff.
It's not just to your mind, when the boxed set including MMM was announced, I forget whether it was Winninger or Crawford but the book was described as a "sneak peak" at the future of D&D and then they dove into a discussion of changes in stat block format and function. And I imagine we'll probably see at least 2 more books that might further push the future of the design (feat chains and the like for instance, looks like we'll be seeing that in Dragonlance and I'm guessing a setting agnostic Tasha's/Xanathar's equivalent thereafter, the idea of additional feats for "heroic" scale D&D also looks like something that we'll be seeing in the DL book).
I would like to see a book that shows a setting and does something with MMM content that grounds _those instances_ of MMM content in that world's lore. I'd also like to see another book that takes much of the same MMM content and grounds it in very different lore. It'd be a literal doubling down on the multiversal concept and would show folks who don't seem to grok how multiversality makes that sort of stuff possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The change to eliminate levelled spells for casters like an archdruid just nerfs creativity. It's not about combat power only, and the DM can add what they want to add, but when I'm looking at the legacy archdruid I get ideas based on situations. Those non-combat, illustionary, search/explore spells that are all laid out SAVE the DM time and also offer ideas. Reducing complexity does not always make the game better or easier.
How often will I bring out an archdruid for my party to tackle? Not often, but when I do it's legacy all the way. The flavour of a full nine level spell assortment comes into play long before any combat has started, and works into the strategy of the larger movements and plot lines of the story. This is a boss, and it should be able to do a lot the players never see, but see the effects of and begin to deduce. That gets lost if you're ONLY using the pared down bland version in Monsters of the Multiverse.
If this is the way things are going, has anyone asked players and DMs if that's actually what they want?
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
Redundancy is a ridiculous claim to make considering they still sell most every book for every previous edition of D&D. If what you said were true, then it wouldn't make any sense to sell the original Ravenloft adventure or White Plume Mountain where we have Curse of Strahd and Tales from the Yawning Portal.
If we are talking economics, then why did they axe two $30 books for a single $30 book? That is the very definition of redundancy. MotM is an intentional and less profitable redundancy. So, I cannot believe that redundancy is the reason they retired them.
It's not economics, it's politics that drove this decision. They were taking a lot of flak over the past decades for cultural insensitivities that existed in a lot of their products. They decided to cut that off at the pass and scrub those details from their books as to allow them to fit a political dogma.
Ideology not economics created this situation.
Your argument falls apart, however, if you apply a little bit of common sense. They do not print and sell corporeal editions of D&D nor do they sell those older books on D&D Beyond - when you purchase them specifically from places that make it clear they are obsolete content. As such, there is no risk of confusion to someone purchasing them about what you get.
As for two being worth more than one, again, let’s apply some common sense to the situation. D&D is slowly rolling out it’s new method of character and monster creation - a $30 book that is in line with its other modern monsters is worth more to them than two $30 books that utilise an obsolete template. Not to mention that this might get folks to spend $30 to get a lot of races, instead of just saying “eh, I am interested in Centaur, but not in Ravnica, so I will either not buy the physical book or only spend the $2 on Beyond in order to purchase if.” More is not always more when you are making a business decision.
“But that still does not account for the missing lore—clearly that proves my point,” I anticipate your response to be… Well, hypothetical answer, MMM already has a lot of content—lots of monsters and races are reprinted in the book. Additional lore, especially with how long some of the lore writing can be, means more pages, which pushes up production costs that would be passed along to the consumer. This is a product designed to be one’s second big purchase after the PHB/MM/DMG - someone who is invested in D&D a bit, but still new enough that keeping product costs low encourages them to expand from the base. Additionally, it is aimed at homebrewers who make their own lore (or are more likely to look up more complete lore in other sources) - recall that most premade adventurer books contain the lore about the towns and people you meet, so players who are not homebrewing already have the lore content they need. If what you said was their primary motivation, they would have done major overhauls to how the lore was written (which they have been doing in other aspects of the game), not simply condensed everything for the reprints.
As I said in my first post, there are going to be folks, like yourself, who are angry about non-mechanical changes Wizards is making and who are trying to see some kind of agenda in everything Wizards does.
They do sell physical copies. Freshly printed content at that. And D&D Beyond is not a definitive source for official 5e content. By the numbers, they are missing more than half of the official 5e content (adventurer's league, other official supplements). Yet, Wizards DOES sell and profit from this other content on multiple other platforms (DM's Guild, Fantasy Ground.)
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
Redundancy is a ridiculous claim to make considering they still sell most every book for every previous edition of D&D. If what you said were true, then it wouldn't make any sense to sell the original Ravenloft adventure or White Plume Mountain where we have Curse of Strahd and Tales from the Yawning Portal.
If we are talking economics, then why did they axe two $30 books for a single $30 book? That is the very definition of redundancy. MotM is an intentional and less profitable redundancy. So, I cannot believe that redundancy is the reason they retired them.
It's not economics, it's politics that drove this decision. They were taking a lot of flak over the past decades for cultural insensitivities that existed in a lot of their products. They decided to cut that off at the pass and scrub those details from their books as to allow them to fit a political dogma.
Ideology not economics created this situation.
Your argument falls apart, however, if you apply a little bit of common sense. They do not print and sell corporeal editions of D&D nor do they sell those older books on D&D Beyond - when you purchase them specifically from places that make it clear they are obsolete content. As such, there is no risk of confusion to someone purchasing them about what you get.
As for two being worth more than one, again, let’s apply some common sense to the situation. D&D is slowly rolling out it’s new method of character and monster creation - a $30 book that is in line with its other modern monsters is worth more to them than two $30 books that utilise an obsolete template. Not to mention that this might get folks to spend $30 to get a lot of races, instead of just saying “eh, I am interested in Centaur, but not in Ravnica, so I will either not buy the physical book or only spend the $2 on Beyond in order to purchase if.” More is not always more when you are making a business decision.
“But that still does not account for the missing lore—clearly that proves my point,” I anticipate your response to be… Well, hypothetical answer, MMM already has a lot of content—lots of monsters and races are reprinted in the book. Additional lore, especially with how long some of the lore writing can be, means more pages, which pushes up production costs that would be passed along to the consumer. This is a product designed to be one’s second big purchase after the PHB/MM/DMG - someone who is invested in D&D a bit, but still new enough that keeping product costs low encourages them to expand from the base. Additionally, it is aimed at homebrewers who make their own lore (or are more likely to look up more complete lore in other sources) - recall that most premade adventurer books contain the lore about the towns and people you meet, so players who are not homebrewing already have the lore content they need. If what you said was their primary motivation, they would have done major overhauls to how the lore was written (which they have been doing in other aspects of the game), not simply condensed everything for the reprints.
As I said in my first post, there are going to be folks, like yourself, who are angry about non-mechanical changes Wizards is making and who are trying to see some kind of agenda in everything Wizards does.
They do sell physical copies. Freshly printed content at that. And D&D Beyond is not a definitive source for official 5e content. By the numbers, they are missing more than half of the official 5e content (adventurer's league, other official supplements). Yet, Wizards DOES sell and profit from this other content on multiple other platforms (DM's Guild, Fantasy Ground.)
So your selection criteria seem a bit selective.
I understand the fact that they are essentially converting content from one edition to probably be compatible with the other, but at the cost of axing two books from DDB, it doesn't really seem worth it. They could have updated VGtM and MToF to fit the next edition, and never printed M3.
I understand slowly switching editions, but by updating books instead of getting rid of them, we could be in a better situation and we would still have Volo's and Mordenkainen's with us. This situation could have easily been avoided if WoTC never printed M3. I understand they wanted to update content, but it's not worth all the problems that it caused.
Why not print M3 when the next edition was released? Everyone knows that the content would be outdated by then and people would be thankful instead of angry at Wizards for bringing back the old content in a way that fits with the new. If editing the old books doesn't work, then this solution should. M3 has caused more trouble than it's worth, I'm sad Wizards couldn't wait till 2024 to print it.
It's not about combat power only, and the DM can add what they want to add, but when I'm looking at the legacy archdruid I get ideas based on situations. Those non-combat, illustionary, search/explore spells that are all laid out SAVE the DM time and also offer ideas. Reducing complexity does not always make the game better or easier.
I would like to see these things captured in a separate area. Similar to how a monster's lair actions are not found in the stat block, but in the lair description, and the regional effects are found within the description as well. A monster's ability to set up plans, as well as its ability to gain allies, interact with its environment, and accumulate power/wealth/items are all important, but they're not always needed. Sometimes you need the info for what happens if the monster is caught alone in an unfamiliar place. Or summoned by a spell, for example. So putting these elements in their description seems best. Second best is putting them in their stat block, and a distant third best is removing them entirely, as the writers have done here.
However, always bear in mind that WotC's goal isn't to enhance your experience with the game. Their goal is to sell products. So while this change might not be useful for DMs, and I basically agree, I assume it's been estimated to sell more books, using metrics to which you and I don't have access. And yes, an amount of lost goodwill and/or brand loyalty resulting from this has already been factored into the arithmetic, and been judged an acceptable cost. Could they be wrong? Certainly. They might lose more sales than they thought they'd lose, or fail to gain as many sales as they thought they'd gain, or even both. But that's somebody's actual job, that pays their actual bills, so they're a bit more motivated and a bit better equipped to get it right than are some randos on the internet, is all.
To those of you wondering why WotC didn't just release errata for the races & monster statblocks in VGtM and MtoF so that they'd match their MotM counterparts and then keep them in print:
That originally was their plan! But then a lot of digital sourcebook users PITCHED A FIT when informed late last year that their books on DDB and elsewhere would be automatically changed with the errata once the new MotM came out. So many complaints about Wizards breaking into the books they'd purchased and changing all the statblocks and races! There were plenty of threads in this very forum!
And so, WotC listened to their customers, and decided that those books wouldn't be changed. The statblocks and races wouldn't be changed. They'd just be Legacy content from that point on. And so those who already owned the 2 digital books in question would be happy, since the statblocks and races wouldn't be changing right out from under them, and they'd have access to the lore content they'd paid for.
If they hadn't made that decision, Volo's and Tome of Foes would likely still be in print, just in a new print with a lot of errata. Then the lore would still be in publication, available to buy and read right here on this site. And there wouldn't be all the confusing duplicate Legacy versions of monsters.
But well, here we are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
To those of you wondering why WotC didn't just release errata for the races & monster statblocks in VGtM and MtoF so that they'd match their MotM counterparts and then keep them in print:
That originally was their plan! But then a lot of digital sourcebook users PITCHED A FIT when informed late last year that their books on DDB and elsewhere would be automatically changed with the errata once the new MotM came out. So many complaints about Wizards breaking into the books they'd purchased and changing all the statblocks and races! There were plenty of threads in this very forum!
And so, WotC listened to their customers, and decided that those books wouldn't be changed. The statblocks and races wouldn't be changed. They'd just be Legacy content from that point on. And so those who already owned the 2 digital books in question would be happy, since the statblocks and races wouldn't be changing right out from under them, and they'd have access to the lore content they'd paid for.
If they hadn't made that decision, Volo's and Tome of Foes would likely still be in print, just in a new print with a lot of errata. Then the lore would still be in publication, available to buy and read right here on this site. And there wouldn't be all the confusing duplicate Legacy versions of monsters.
But well, here we are.
So there was no reality where both the lore and original stats continued to be published alongside MotM?
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
To those of you wondering why WotC didn't just release errata for the races & monster statblocks in VGtM and MtoF so that they'd match their MotM counterparts and then keep them in print:
That originally was their plan! But then a lot of digital sourcebook users PITCHED A FIT when informed late last year that their books on DDB and elsewhere would be automatically changed with the errata once the new MotM came out. So many complaints about Wizards breaking into the books they'd purchased and changing all the statblocks and races! There were plenty of threads in this very forum!
And so, WotC listened to their customers, and decided that those books wouldn't be changed. The statblocks and races wouldn't be changed. They'd just be Legacy content from that point on. And so those who already owned the 2 digital books in question would be happy, since the statblocks and races wouldn't be changing right out from under them, and they'd have access to the lore content they'd paid for.
If they hadn't made that decision, Volo's and Tome of Foes would likely still be in print, just in a new print with a lot of errata. Then the lore would still be in publication, available to buy and read right here on this site. And there wouldn't be all the confusing duplicate Legacy versions of monsters.
But well, here we are.
Couldn't they have just released updated versions of the book when the new edition came out?
That's not changing the books and getting rid of content, that's just adding new things to the new edition. People couldn't complain about losing their content then, because it was supposed to be lost anyway when the new edition came out, and was instead brought back rather than eliminated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
It's not about combat power only, and the DM can add what they want to add, but when I'm looking at the legacy archdruid I get ideas based on situations. Those non-combat, illustionary, search/explore spells that are all laid out SAVE the DM time and also offer ideas. Reducing complexity does not always make the game better or easier.
I would like to see these things captured in a separate area. Similar to how a monster's lair actions are not found in the stat block, but in the lair description, and the regional effects are found within the description as well. A monster's ability to set up plans, as well as its ability to gain allies, interact with its environment, and accumulate power/wealth/items are all important, but they're not always needed. Sometimes you need the info for what happens if the monster is caught alone in an unfamiliar place. Or summoned by a spell, for example. So putting these elements in their description seems best. Second best is putting them in their stat block, and a distant third best is removing them entirely, as the writers have done here.
However, always bear in mind that WotC's goal isn't to enhance your experience with the game. Their goal is to sell products. So while this change might not be useful for DMs, and I basically agree, I assume it's been estimated to sell more books, using metrics to which you and I don't have access. And yes, an amount of lost goodwill and/or brand loyalty resulting from this has already been factored into the arithmetic, and been judged an acceptable cost. Could they be wrong? Certainly. They might lose more sales than they thought they'd lose, or fail to gain as many sales as they thought they'd gain, or even both. But that's somebody's actual job, that pays their actual bills, so they're a bit more motivated and a bit better equipped to get it right than are some randos on the internet, is all.
I'd like them more as they were since that is the familiar place for spells to appear. If magic works one way with Characters and NPCs and another way with monsters that is actually more difficult.
While WotC wants to sell products, it's just been through the greatest period of growth in its primary gaming product since its inception. The designers don't need to reinvent the game, as they've gotten close to a system that plays well for old-timers as well as newbies. ( I play in a group with several who started months ago, and others who've played since 1st edition, and all seem to figure the system out pretty easily and enjoy the mechanics).
It's tempting to want to tweak existing minutia to improve things, but what people really want across the board are exciting gaming experiences in adventurous locations. So make new adventures (like they have been doing well with Candlekeep, Wichlight and Strixhaven, etc), and make cool new monsters and items and stuff! Flesh things out in new ways. Sure, reinvigorate worlds that existed in earlier versions, that's great. But the system doesn't have to alter dramatically while doing that.
The look of the changes is toward simplification, even gamification, as Keith Ammann pointed out so well in his blog. Monsters in the Multiverse descriptions/statblocks feel like they're just combat machines more than complex beings with their own worlds, instincts, knowledge systems and diverse sets of abilities. I don't like what that implies about future directions for the game as a whole.
To those of you wondering why WotC didn't just release errata for the races & monster statblocks in VGtM and MtoF so that they'd match their MotM counterparts and then keep them in print:
That originally was their plan! But then a lot of digital sourcebook users PITCHED A FIT when informed late last year that their books on DDB and elsewhere would be automatically changed with the errata once the new MotM came out. So many complaints about Wizards breaking into the books they'd purchased and changing all the statblocks and races! There were plenty of threads in this very forum!
And so, WotC listened to their customers, and decided that those books wouldn't be changed. The statblocks and races wouldn't be changed. They'd just be Legacy content from that point on. And so those who already owned the 2 digital books in question would be happy, since the statblocks and races wouldn't be changing right out from under them, and they'd have access to the lore content they'd paid for.
If they hadn't made that decision, Volo's and Tome of Foes would likely still be in print, just in a new print with a lot of errata. Then the lore would still be in publication, available to buy and read right here on this site. And there wouldn't be all the confusing duplicate Legacy versions of monsters.
But well, here we are.
Couldn't they have just released updated versions of the book when the new edition came out?
That's not changing the books and getting rid of content, that's just adding new things to the new edition. People couldn't complain about losing their content then, because it was supposed to be lost anyway when the new edition came out, and was instead brought back rather than eliminated.
People will complain regardless. They still complain about things that never appeared in 5e from previous editions and they will complain when the new "Edition" is released and will continue to do so long after.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My only gripe about the new book is that it doesn't include all the orc variants that were in Volo's. I'm in favor of all the player race changes and updates to the stat blocks, but I do miss my orcs.
I agree that most if not all the Tasha’s optional class features will be incorporated. But I think the PHB survey was conducted after Tasha’s so who knows. They may revamp problem classes and class features and not include some of the Tasha’s options.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
They have made a big deal about the new rules being fully backwards compatible, So PHB classes etc will all be fully usable alongside any changes that are made in the new edition. In fact this gives greater flexibility of party, one player deciding to take legacy Warlock and another New edition cleric.
Tashas, Xanathars, all the campaign settings and books I expect to be fully incorporated with at most online FAQ's for any clashes in rules, but that does not indicate full backwards compatibility so I am expecting changes to be far more subtle in various ways. Possibly they will incorporate all the new spells into the new PHB.
This doesn't mean they'll be equal, though. If the 5.5e classes power creep enough, they'll effectively render the old versions obsolete.
And to be clear, if the designers hit their mark and successfully rework these things to better fit the way people actually play, then classes like the Warlock that rely on short rests absolutely will get stronger compared to their current versions. This is the goal, not some avoidable side effect. The "technical" power level could stay exactly the same, but the practical power level is meant to shift dramatically, at least as I understand it.
Then, whatever reasons exist for delisting VGtM and MToF will also apply to the core rulebooks.
I’m sure it will be backwards compatible. But that doesn’t mean we won’t see significant changes. I’m not expecting that, but take the Ranger for example. There were issues with the PHB Ranger so they releases Optional/Replacement features in Tasha’s. Who’s to say that they won’t completely rework the 2024 PHB Ranger so that only a few or no PHB/Tasha’s features are in it. You probably can still pick up current 5E subclasses or the new 2024 PHB subclasses at level 3, but the core class could be wholly different. Again, I’m not anticipating anything that drastic but you never know.
I am anticipating that come 2025, 2026, or whenever, new Campaign Settings will be released that will have the lore MMM is missing on monsters and PC races, as well as lore that will not be on the 2024 PHB or MM for that particular setting. I believe they mentioned more campaign settings will be coming out, old and completely new and I’m sure they will fall under the 2024 design philosophy, even if they come out prior to 2024
And books like Xanathar’s will go the way of VGtM and MToF when their replacement comes out.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I hope so, I always love reading about D&D lore. Maybe we'll get more stuff on Netheril!
Also, more campaign settings are always neat.
But I don't want to get my hopes up... We can't ever be completely sure about what WoTC might do.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Several monsters, including demon lords and archdevils are now, inexplicably, weaker in MMoM than in MtoF even though there is clearly some powercreep since then via Tasha's.
Redundancy is a ridiculous claim to make considering they still sell most every book for every previous edition of D&D. If what you said were true, then it wouldn't make any sense to sell the original Ravenloft adventure or White Plume Mountain where we have Curse of Strahd and Tales from the Yawning Portal.
If we are talking economics, then why did they axe two $30 books for a single $30 book? That is the very definition of redundancy. MotM is an intentional and less profitable redundancy. So, I cannot believe that redundancy is the reason they retired them.
[REDACTED]
Your argument falls apart, however, if you apply a little bit of common sense. They do not print and sell corporeal editions of D&D nor do they sell those older books on D&D Beyond - when you purchase them specifically from places that make it clear they are obsolete content. As such, there is no risk of confusion to someone purchasing them about what you get.
As for two being worth more than one, again, let’s apply some common sense to the situation. D&D is slowly rolling out it’s new method of character and monster creation - a $30 book that is in line with its other modern monsters is worth more to them than two $30 books that utilise an obsolete template. Not to mention that this might get folks to spend $30 to get a lot of races, instead of just saying “eh, I am interested in Centaur, but not in Ravnica, so I will either not buy the physical book or only spend the $2 on Beyond in order to purchase if.” More is not always more when you are making a business decision.
“But that still does not account for the missing lore—clearly that proves my point,” I anticipate your response to be… Well, hypothetical answer, MMM already has a lot of content—lots of monsters and races are reprinted in the book. Additional lore, especially with how long some of the lore writing can be, means more pages, which pushes up production costs that would be passed along to the consumer. This is a product designed to be one’s second big purchase after the PHB/MM/DMG - someone who is invested in D&D a bit, but still new enough that keeping product costs low encourages them to expand from the base. Additionally, it is aimed at homebrewers who make their own lore (or are more likely to look up more complete lore in other sources) - recall that most premade adventurer books contain the lore about the towns and people you meet, so players who are not homebrewing already have the lore content they need. If what you said was their primary motivation, they would have done major overhauls to how the lore was written (which they have been doing in other aspects of the game), not simply condensed everything for the reprints.
As I said in my first post, there are going to be folks, like yourself, who are angry about non-mechanical changes Wizards is making and who are trying to see some kind of agenda in everything Wizards does.
In my mind MMM is book 1 of the "Next Evolution" of D&D, with the three core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM) coming in 2024. So it doesn't matter if it's redundancy, profits, whatever, they chose a new direction and they are driving toward it. With all the non-PHB races out of the way any new supplemental books (adventures, campaign settings, etc) can focus more on lore, subclasses, unique monsters and/or spells, and that type of stuff.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It's not just to your mind, when the boxed set including MMM was announced, I forget whether it was Winninger or Crawford but the book was described as a "sneak peak" at the future of D&D and then they dove into a discussion of changes in stat block format and function. And I imagine we'll probably see at least 2 more books that might further push the future of the design (feat chains and the like for instance, looks like we'll be seeing that in Dragonlance and I'm guessing a setting agnostic Tasha's/Xanathar's equivalent thereafter, the idea of additional feats for "heroic" scale D&D also looks like something that we'll be seeing in the DL book).
I would like to see a book that shows a setting and does something with MMM content that grounds _those instances_ of MMM content in that world's lore. I'd also like to see another book that takes much of the same MMM content and grounds it in very different lore. It'd be a literal doubling down on the multiversal concept and would show folks who don't seem to grok how multiversality makes that sort of stuff possible.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The change to eliminate levelled spells for casters like an archdruid just nerfs creativity. It's not about combat power only, and the DM can add what they want to add, but when I'm looking at the legacy archdruid I get ideas based on situations. Those non-combat, illustionary, search/explore spells that are all laid out SAVE the DM time and also offer ideas. Reducing complexity does not always make the game better or easier.
How often will I bring out an archdruid for my party to tackle? Not often, but when I do it's legacy all the way. The flavour of a full nine level spell assortment comes into play long before any combat has started, and works into the strategy of the larger movements and plot lines of the story. This is a boss, and it should be able to do a lot the players never see, but see the effects of and begin to deduce. That gets lost if you're ONLY using the pared down bland version in Monsters of the Multiverse.
If this is the way things are going, has anyone asked players and DMs if that's actually what they want?
They do sell physical copies. Freshly printed content at that. And D&D Beyond is not a definitive source for official 5e content. By the numbers, they are missing more than half of the official 5e content (adventurer's league, other official supplements). Yet, Wizards DOES sell and profit from this other content on multiple other platforms (DM's Guild, Fantasy Ground.)
So your selection criteria seem a bit selective.
I understand the fact that they are essentially converting content from one edition to probably be compatible with the other, but at the cost of axing two books from DDB, it doesn't really seem worth it. They could have updated VGtM and MToF to fit the next edition, and never printed M3.
I understand slowly switching editions, but by updating books instead of getting rid of them, we could be in a better situation and we would still have Volo's and Mordenkainen's with us. This situation could have easily been avoided if WoTC never printed M3. I understand they wanted to update content, but it's not worth all the problems that it caused.
Why not print M3 when the next edition was released? Everyone knows that the content would be outdated by then and people would be thankful instead of angry at Wizards for bringing back the old content in a way that fits with the new. If editing the old books doesn't work, then this solution should. M3 has caused more trouble than it's worth, I'm sad Wizards couldn't wait till 2024 to print it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I would like to see these things captured in a separate area. Similar to how a monster's lair actions are not found in the stat block, but in the lair description, and the regional effects are found within the description as well. A monster's ability to set up plans, as well as its ability to gain allies, interact with its environment, and accumulate power/wealth/items are all important, but they're not always needed. Sometimes you need the info for what happens if the monster is caught alone in an unfamiliar place. Or summoned by a spell, for example. So putting these elements in their description seems best. Second best is putting them in their stat block, and a distant third best is removing them entirely, as the writers have done here.
However, always bear in mind that WotC's goal isn't to enhance your experience with the game. Their goal is to sell products. So while this change might not be useful for DMs, and I basically agree, I assume it's been estimated to sell more books, using metrics to which you and I don't have access. And yes, an amount of lost goodwill and/or brand loyalty resulting from this has already been factored into the arithmetic, and been judged an acceptable cost. Could they be wrong? Certainly. They might lose more sales than they thought they'd lose, or fail to gain as many sales as they thought they'd gain, or even both. But that's somebody's actual job, that pays their actual bills, so they're a bit more motivated and a bit better equipped to get it right than are some randos on the internet, is all.
To those of you wondering why WotC didn't just release errata for the races & monster statblocks in VGtM and MtoF so that they'd match their MotM counterparts and then keep them in print:
That originally was their plan! But then a lot of digital sourcebook users PITCHED A FIT when informed late last year that their books on DDB and elsewhere would be automatically changed with the errata once the new MotM came out. So many complaints about Wizards breaking into the books they'd purchased and changing all the statblocks and races! There were plenty of threads in this very forum!
And so, WotC listened to their customers, and decided that those books wouldn't be changed. The statblocks and races wouldn't be changed. They'd just be Legacy content from that point on. And so those who already owned the 2 digital books in question would be happy, since the statblocks and races wouldn't be changing right out from under them, and they'd have access to the lore content they'd paid for.
If they hadn't made that decision, Volo's and Tome of Foes would likely still be in print, just in a new print with a lot of errata. Then the lore would still be in publication, available to buy and read right here on this site. And there wouldn't be all the confusing duplicate Legacy versions of monsters.
But well, here we are.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
So there was no reality where both the lore and original stats continued to be published alongside MotM?
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Couldn't they have just released updated versions of the book when the new edition came out?
That's not changing the books and getting rid of content, that's just adding new things to the new edition. People couldn't complain about losing their content then, because it was supposed to be lost anyway when the new edition came out, and was instead brought back rather than eliminated.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I'd like them more as they were since that is the familiar place for spells to appear. If magic works one way with Characters and NPCs and another way with monsters that is actually more difficult.
While WotC wants to sell products, it's just been through the greatest period of growth in its primary gaming product since its inception. The designers don't need to reinvent the game, as they've gotten close to a system that plays well for old-timers as well as newbies. ( I play in a group with several who started months ago, and others who've played since 1st edition, and all seem to figure the system out pretty easily and enjoy the mechanics).
It's tempting to want to tweak existing minutia to improve things, but what people really want across the board are exciting gaming experiences in adventurous locations. So make new adventures (like they have been doing well with Candlekeep, Wichlight and Strixhaven, etc), and make cool new monsters and items and stuff! Flesh things out in new ways. Sure, reinvigorate worlds that existed in earlier versions, that's great. But the system doesn't have to alter dramatically while doing that.
The look of the changes is toward simplification, even gamification, as Keith Ammann pointed out so well in his blog. Monsters in the Multiverse descriptions/statblocks feel like they're just combat machines more than complex beings with their own worlds, instincts, knowledge systems and diverse sets of abilities. I don't like what that implies about future directions for the game as a whole.
People will complain regardless. They still complain about things that never appeared in 5e from previous editions and they will complain when the new "Edition" is released and will continue to do so long after.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master