I’m so interested to see people’s reaction to this organization method. I make 3rd party content and I need to decide whether to continue the old school way or go alphabetical. Side note: I’m pretty sure we were specifically promised tools for a la carte monster creation, so we could make monsters with the same guidelines their team uses. It is the main thing I was waiting for in this book.
Did they fix the broken CR system? I preferred having NPCs in one section. I think it would make more sense to maintain the 2014 organization but include sub categories in the ToC so it is apparent what is where.
I'm curious now w/ the MM you have if you can go through the changes for "magical damage" from 2014 that seems to have been removed from 2024 stuff and how some 2014 monsters had the "only damaged by magical such and such" how those stat blocks have changed to incorporate the fact that PCs don't get that at level ~5 now? Might be an interesting discussion for how all the resistances/immunities transferred.
@sythguy there is no more situational damage resistance any more at all. A lot of creature had that type of Resistances removed altogether. If they still have it, it's just flat resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, slashing
Do you know if the Index will be included in the DND Beyiond version of the book? Alphabetic only for DNDB would be less than helpful for devils,. demons, dragons, genies, etc.
I think it’s safe to say they will be, but we won’t know for sure until it comes out for early access next week. We do know that there are lists of monsters by CR, creature type, and habitat in the appendices, which have appeared in the DnD Beyond versions of the previous core rulebooks.
Hi, i don't know if it's just me, but... in the last couple weeks, when you release a video. it comes without a title; it only display the date and hour. Nothing important, but i thought to let you know in case it's not only me.
@ There is not an inherent problem with using a 2014 monster alongside a 2024 monster in the same encounter, you just need to follow some guidelines to do it properly. Jeremy Crawford has said in videos on the D&D TH-cam channel that if you want to mix and match, you should follow these guidelines: 1. Use the 2024 rules as the overall framework because they have keywords and things that aren't defined in the 2014 rules but appear in 2024 character options, items, and monsters; and 2. If a character option, item, or monster has been revised and reprinted in the 2024 rules, use that version, but anything not revised from 2014 is still fair game. Therefore you could use a Monsters of the Multiverse Brontosaurus next to a 2024 Monster Manual Triceratops without issue.
@@mikeg8564 That why i said that, it like saying you can eat 50 eggs... "can" Doe personally i am a avatar of choas and want pure fun so the rules fall apart.
Needing rules to make monsters is peak consumer slop behavior imo. I dont need rules to breath and i dont need rules to play. Their power ends the moment my games start. 😂
@Subject_Keter No one "needs" rules to make monsters, but once again WotC is more keen on their ever so muddied "DM will figure it out" approach instead of having a consistent approach with their system. Also, for the people who are new to monster design, it's not bad to have guidelines.
You have an entire monster manual full of inspiration and Stat blocks to play with when creating monsters. It's just like creating player characters honestly
@@saigyouayakashi5026 it’s nice to have suggestions on adjusting monsters up or down without slaughtering your PCs with a TPK or getting your really cool monsters slaughtered in seconds. Ya know, helpful shit like that?
8:30 looks like I'm going to be converting the Orc stat block from 2014 into a 2024 version. That and all of the orc subtypes they removed that were in volos guide to monsters. Like giant bat riding orc assassins. This is just terrible.
I really hate that the book is alphabetical by name (Chain Devil in C) and not alphabetical by category (Chain Devil and all other devils in D for devil).
I kinda would've preferred if the entire book was separate into the categories of monsters, and then have them arranged alphabetically within those categories. Not having all the Oozes together, for example, is a little annoying. But I guess if they wanted to cram as many stat blocks as they did, not much room for extra pages to categorize monsters. Still, a single page intro to the type of monsters would've been neat. A slight primer on background info for the family of monsters as a whole, and maybe some slight suggestions on where they would likely to be encountered. A good way to expand the lore of D&D.
I think the point of this organizational style is that you only need the name of a monster to find its stat block, not the name AND its creature type. It's purely a new-player-friendliness and efficiency-in-finding-creatures thing
Idk to me but I prefer to use them as a guideline of what is "proper" then a video game where it chains me to THEIR rules. If you are shackling yourself to someone else idea of fun... why are you letting them?
I believe at least part of the reason has to do with the fact that WotC is trying to avoid connecting what is now known as species with morality and basically boil things down to “this race is evil”. This impacts all of the playable species featured in the new PHB. I’m pretty sure that this is why most if not all humanoid stat blocks in the new MM are more generic NPCs. I also believe that the other side of the coin of this same philosophy are all the reclassifications of humanoids to other creature types, i.e. goblinoids as fey, gnolls as fiends, githyanki and githzerai as aberrations, etc.
I hate the alphabetical order, basically useless at the table. It's also so hard to use if you don't know a monsters name. I feel that if i'm gifted this book, I'll have to re-order it myself. Edit: It just dawned on me. The reason why they did it this way is because it's designed for pre-made adventures! Where you know the creatures name. I only homebrew, so I prefer type as that's where I'd start planning a session.
@cschwally by type. Often an encounter will have monsters from the same type with a few exceptions. for example, Devils. but with this I'll been pages from all over the book rather than grouped together.
@@mikeg8564 If you don’t know the name of the monsters, that’s your fault. Do you know how many things on this planet are sorted alphabetically? The only thing you need to know is the name. And even if you don’t remember the name, they have lists of everything by type, habitat and more. Alphabetically is the perfect way to do it, you’re just incredibly dumb
JC: We want to give you more tools to make it fun...
Gets rid of templates and the guidelines for creating and altering monsters...
Hahaha so true!
I dont need crawfish to have fun in my games.
@@Subject_Keter nor do I but his contradictions are astounding.
i'll take more unique variants to work with and modify to my own tastes than 100 templates i never use
They tried this organization of spreading everything out and there was an uproar at that time back in the 90s in the Compendiums.
I’m so interested to see people’s reaction to this organization method. I make 3rd party content and I need to decide whether to continue the old school way or go alphabetical.
Side note: I’m pretty sure we were specifically promised tools for a la carte monster creation, so we could make monsters with the same guidelines their team uses. It is the main thing I was waiting for in this book.
Is there a petition we could send out to wotc for a supplemental going over monster creation.
Did they fix the broken CR system?
I preferred having NPCs in one section. I think it would make more sense to maintain the 2014 organization but include sub categories in the ToC so it is apparent what is where.
I'm curious now w/ the MM you have if you can go through the changes for "magical damage" from 2014 that seems to have been removed from 2024 stuff and how some 2014 monsters had the "only damaged by magical such and such" how those stat blocks have changed to incorporate the fact that PCs don't get that at level ~5 now? Might be an interesting discussion for how all the resistances/immunities transferred.
@sythguy there is no more situational damage resistance any more at all. A lot of creature had that type of Resistances removed altogether. If they still have it, it's just flat resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, slashing
@@NerdImmersion that makes sense, I was also curious if the hit dice/ average HP changed as well. Thanks!
I am super new. How does the NPC stat block work ?
Hey Ted, are you going to go through the creature conversion section in a separate video???
Do you know if the Index will be included in the DND Beyiond version of the book? Alphabetic only for DNDB would be less than helpful for devils,. demons, dragons, genies, etc.
I think it’s safe to say they will be, but we won’t know for sure until it comes out for early access next week. We do know that there are lists of monsters by CR, creature type, and habitat in the appendices, which have appeared in the DnD Beyond versions of the previous core rulebooks.
Hi, i don't know if it's just me, but... in the last couple weeks, when you release a video. it comes without a title; it only display the date and hour.
Nothing important, but i thought to let you know in case it's not only me.
So is monsters of the multiverse not completely compatible with one dnd?
You can still use old monsters with the new rules, it's just that the philosophy behind designing them has changed.
Just dont mix like the old monsters and stuff with the new verisons. They should stay 2014 or 2024 not a random mixture of both.
@Subject_Keter I mean you can. Results may vary.
@ There is not an inherent problem with using a 2014 monster alongside a 2024 monster in the same encounter, you just need to follow some guidelines to do it properly. Jeremy Crawford has said in videos on the D&D TH-cam channel that if you want to mix and match, you should follow these guidelines: 1. Use the 2024 rules as the overall framework because they have keywords and things that aren't defined in the 2014 rules but appear in 2024 character options, items, and monsters; and 2. If a character option, item, or monster has been revised and reprinted in the 2024 rules, use that version, but anything not revised from 2014 is still fair game. Therefore you could use a Monsters of the Multiverse Brontosaurus next to a 2024 Monster Manual Triceratops without issue.
@@mikeg8564 That why i said that, it like saying you can eat 50 eggs... "can"
Doe personally i am a avatar of choas and want pure fun so the rules fall apart.
No monster creation rules in the literal monster manual (after there were essentially none in the dmg) is peak WoTC behavior.
Needing rules to make monsters is peak consumer slop behavior imo.
I dont need rules to breath and i dont need rules to play.
Their power ends the moment my games start. 😂
@Subject_Keter No one "needs" rules to make monsters, but once again WotC is more keen on their ever so muddied "DM will figure it out" approach instead of having a consistent approach with their system. Also, for the people who are new to monster design, it's not bad to have guidelines.
You have an entire monster manual full of inspiration and Stat blocks to play with when creating monsters. It's just like creating player characters honestly
@@saigyouayakashi5026 it’s nice to have suggestions on adjusting monsters up or down without slaughtering your PCs with a TPK or getting your really cool monsters slaughtered in seconds. Ya know, helpful shit like that?
There weren't any in 1e
8:30 looks like I'm going to be converting the Orc stat block from 2014 into a 2024 version. That and all of the orc subtypes they removed that were in volos guide to monsters. Like giant bat riding orc assassins. This is just terrible.
I really hate that the book is alphabetical by name (Chain Devil in C) and not alphabetical by category (Chain Devil and all other devils in D for devil).
A drow is a priest statblock? Wtf?!
I think the idea is to have them be acolytes of Lolth, rather than just generic drow.
That 10:00 mark exactly 👌
I kinda would've preferred if the entire book was separate into the categories of monsters, and then have them arranged alphabetically within those categories. Not having all the Oozes together, for example, is a little annoying. But I guess if they wanted to cram as many stat blocks as they did, not much room for extra pages to categorize monsters. Still, a single page intro to the type of monsters would've been neat. A slight primer on background info for the family of monsters as a whole, and maybe some slight suggestions on where they would likely to be encountered. A good way to expand the lore of D&D.
I think the point of this organizational style is that you only need the name of a monster to find its stat block, not the name AND its creature type. It's purely a new-player-friendliness and efficiency-in-finding-creatures thing
I think the name thing makes sense. If I want to see Death Knights, i want to find the quick one.
which revamped monster or new monster is underwhelming to you? Not that they are bad, just underwhelming.
Why do I dislike this version so much. I feel I will not be running or playing D&D till the next version comes out in 10 years.
I'm just going to carry on playing 2014 rules to be honest.
Idk to me but I prefer to use them as a guideline of what is "proper" then a video game where it chains me to THEIR rules.
If you are shackling yourself to someone else idea of fun... why are you letting them?
@@Subject_Keter I am running Shadowdark and loving it.
Hearing drow and orcs becoming generic NPC statblocks hurts.
I am actually happy about this, because now we will have a much larger selection of NPCs because I used Drow and Orcs as NPCs anyway.
They’re humanoids
They're both player classes now, why wouldn't they be NPCs?
I believe at least part of the reason has to do with the fact that WotC is trying to avoid connecting what is now known as species with morality and basically boil things down to “this race is evil”. This impacts all of the playable species featured in the new PHB. I’m pretty sure that this is why most if not all humanoid stat blocks in the new MM are more generic NPCs. I also believe that the other side of the coin of this same philosophy are all the reclassifications of humanoids to other creature types, i.e. goblinoids as fey, gnolls as fiends, githyanki and githzerai as aberrations, etc.
I hate the alphabetical order, basically useless at the table. It's also so hard to use if you don't know a monsters name. I feel that if i'm gifted this book, I'll have to re-order it myself.
Edit: It just dawned on me. The reason why they did it this way is because it's designed for pre-made adventures! Where you know the creatures name.
I only homebrew, so I prefer type as that's where I'd start planning a session.
If not alphabetically, how do you plan to re-order it?
I hope you realize how stupid that sounds
@cschwally by type. Often an encounter will have monsters from the same type with a few exceptions.
for example, Devils. but with this I'll been pages from all over the book rather than grouped together.
@@EpicRandomness555 Please, elaborate.
@@mikeg8564 If you don’t know the name of the monsters, that’s your fault. Do you know how many things on this planet are sorted alphabetically? The only thing you need to know is the name. And even if you don’t remember the name, they have lists of everything by type, habitat and more. Alphabetically is the perfect way to do it, you’re just incredibly dumb