D&D 5E List of All 33 Races in Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse

Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse contains 33 races compiled from previous Dungeons & Dragons books.

• Aarackocra
• Assimar
• Bugbear
• Centaur
• Changeling
• Deep Gnome
• Duergar
• Eladrin
• Fairy
• Firbolg
• Genasi, Air
• Genasi, Earth
• Genasi, Fire
• Gennasi, Water
• Githyanki
• Githzerai
• Goblin
• Goliath
• Harengon
• Hobgoblin
• Kenku
• Kobold
• Lizardfolk
• Minotaur
• Orc
• Satyr
• Sea Elf
• Shadar Kai
• Shifter
• Tabaxi
• Turtle
• Triton
• Yuan-ti

D&D 5E - Full List of Monsters in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse

Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse contains revamped stat blocks for 260 monsters previously published in previous Dungeons & Dragons 5E books. The list was compiled by YouTuber Bob Worldbuilder based on some blurry screenshots originally shared by Nerd Immersion (see the video...

www.enworld.org

While reprinted, these races have all been updated to the current standard used by WotC for D&D races used in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, including a free choice of ability score increases (increase one by 2 points and another by 1 point; or increase three by 1 point), and small races not suffering a movement speed penalty.

The video below from Nerd Immersion delves into the races in more detail.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You clearly missed my general point.

To summarize: I am against removing racial abilities (including fixed ASI) as the starting point in the game when you choose a race. It is a cookie-cutter thing yes, but it is the best starting point for anyone playing their first character or five, just like classes and archetypes.

If you find the fixed ASI limited, there's the Tasha rule already that let's you choose a different ASI.

Apparently that option is still not enough for some minmaxers, so I say fine, let them have even more flexibility, even if I personally wouldn't even use Tasha's option.

But I don't see why in order to satisfy players who like Tasha's option, they have to penalise those who liked fixed ASI, by retconning existing races and remove those ASI, when Tasha's rule already does that if you want! Better to promote Tasha's rule (as an option) to the next PHB reprint or revision. Or alternatively, leave a suggested ASI for each race at least.

This is why I see listing Tasha's as optional was intentionally deceptive. I believe they always intended it to be the new law of the land.

 

[dave2008]

You clearly missed my general point.

To summarize: I am against removing racial abilities (including fixed ASI) as the starting point in the game when you choose a race. It is a cookie-cutter thing yes, but it is the best starting point for anyone playing their first character or five, just like classes and archetypes.

If you find the fixed ASI limited, there's the Tasha rule already that lets you choose a different ASI.

Apparently that option is still not enough for some minmaxers, so I say fine, let them have even more flexibility, even if I personally wouldn't even use Tasha's option because I can get the ability scores I want even with the fixed ASI.

But I don't see why in order to satisfy players who like Tasha's option, they have to penalise those who liked fixed ASI, by retconning existing races and remove those ASI, when Tasha's rule already does that if you want! Better to promote Tasha's rule (as an option alongside fixed ASI) to the next PHB reprint or revision. Or alternatively, leave a suggested ASI for each race at least.

It's a little bit like base ability scores: some people like them random, some like a fixed array and some like point-buy. It is just cruelty to say "hey look more people like option X so let's eliminate option Y".

Of course you don't have to buy those books and/or include those revised races.

 

[Remathilis]

And because the kind of nuance people are demanding is hard, and not a guarantee of positive acceptance, and potentially less marketable, I strongly feel that WotC won't bother with it at all, in favor of minimum lore for everyone.

Granted, and I wager WotC isn't going to spill gallons of ink discussing cultural nuances of elves, orcs, or dragons, considering how prevalent homebrewing is anyway and its new stance of canon. What I imagine will be true is we won't be getting much "deep dive" lore anymore; nothing like the elf section in Tome of Foes or the goblin section Volos. I think a good indication of what lore will look at is how currently WotC has treated its legacy settings (Eberron and Ravenloft). If you look at the amount of info on a nation, NPC, deity, or organization in E:RftLW or VRGR, it's enough to give you the gist of what it is, but nowhere near the richness of campaign guides of previous editions. It's enough to explain the concept, but anything more will require the DM to research it from older lore (and adjust to make fit) or make it up themselves.

I imagine for those who like to go their own way, it will be fine if not liberating. If you like the notion of that work being done for you (or having an "official" answer) it will be maddening.

 

[Faolyn]

I will only speak for myself, but as a player, there is an aspect of fun in alternative (suboptimal builds) and making them work in play. Some would lump this under "system mastery", but for me it's about fun. I like my rogue with a 14 DEX and an 18 WIS, because he adds to the challenges I face as a player and helps me as I characterize him. Is he "mildly less effective"? Sure -- and I chose that. I don't think it impacts the other players, and it gives me an opportunity to explore things.

Another example is (an earlier character) but the low-intelligence halforc wizard. His spell selection focused on spells without saves, and it was fun (for me) to make him work. I've just spent a bunch of time thinking about a Wisdom-based Ranger; perhaps that will be my next character.

Is that for everyone? Absolutely not. But it will be for some, and for them it is a real benefit.

The new approach to ability adjustment removes so much of the obstacles to sub-optimal characters. And that's fine -- even great. But we should want some variation on play experience, and lineage is one way for that to happen.

Would you ever think to play a low-Int non-orc wizard?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Granted, and I wager WotC isn't going to spill gallons of ink discussing cultural nuances of elves, orcs, or dragons, considering how prevalent homebrewing is anyway and its new stance of canon. What I imagine will be true is we won't be getting much "deep dive" lore anymore; nothing like the elf section in Tome of Foes or the goblin section Volos. I think a good indication of what lore will look at is how currently WotC has treated its legacy settings (Eberron and Ravenloft). If you look at the amount of info on a nation, NPC, deity, or organization in E:RftLW or VRGR, it's enough to give you the gist of what it is, but nowhere near the richness of campaign guides of previous editions. It's enough to explain the concept, but anything more will require the DM to research it from older lore (and adjust to make fit) or make it up themselves.

I imagine for those who like to go their own way, it will be fine if not liberating. If you like the notion of that work being done for you (or having an "official" answer) it will be maddening.

Agreed. For good or ill, the internet has scared WotC away from generating anything but the most basic of lore.

 

[Cadence]

Would you ever think to play a low-Int non-orc wizard?

What is low? And are the caster abilities 5e important or 3e important?

14 in 5e? Sure, if it fit a character idea.

 

[Li Shenron]

Of course you don't have to buy those books and/or include those revised races.

Yes but a lot of people is pretty much saying that they want these to be defaults for all future books as well as next edition

 

[Maxperson]

What is low? And are the caster abilities 5e important or 3e important?

14 in 5e? Sure, if it fit a character idea.

Right. What "low" means is probably a good thing to know. I'd make a 14 int wizard in 5e.

 

[Irlo]

Agreed. For good or ill, the internet has scared WotC away from generating anything but the most basic of lore.

Fear of social media backlash is certainly a motive that one might imagine to be a primary driver of creative decision-making.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Would you ever think to play a low-Int non-orc wizard?

If the only acceptable main ability score for a class is the maximum, then the ability score and class system has failed. And perhaps it has.