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.

 

[Scribe]

Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes,

I bought MToF especially for the lore, back when it was still canon anyway.

Personally, I'd say that the draw of books like those is that they contain a mix of lore and mechanics. A balance that Wizards would be wise to retain. But modifying the presentation, as in Fizban's, seems like a good way forward.

Yep.

 

[Cadence]

RE: Lore in Monster Books

I think I like having a lot of lore in the books when I don't have a fixed opinion to the contrary and/or don't hate what the lore says.

To really hate it, I think it needs the behavior/characteristics/conception to be tied to a particular cosmology that doesn't fit with my past experience or current wants. Making a bunch of giants elementals annoyed the heck out of me. Tying some PC races intrinsically to a certain historical animosity annoyed me.

I wasn't particularly tied to gnolls in early editions, so making them more demonic wasn't a big deal. Changing the goblinoids clashes with some of my past ingrained ideas, but I can see making something cool our of it -- but I understand why others may loathe it.

 

[JEB]

I'm going to be honest, this whole argument that there's a new book that's primarily a collection of crunch from two older books means "WotC doesn't care about lore anymore" seems a bit of a stretch.

It seems pretty obvious (to me, at least) that WotC is building out a "multiverse" idea of D&D lore, where there's an archetypal concept of the races and classes that exists in the "First World" (and is what gets published in "core" material), and every setting develops those concepts and might discard them for something else entirely, if it fits the setting's established lore.

The lore material from Volo's and Mordenkainen's obviously didn't make the cut to be included in this new blueprint, and is thus being excised by the publication of the new book.

It's certainly possible that Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse is an anomaly, since it's a compilation and update of previously published material. But it's also clear that these new versions are meant to replace, not supplement, the originals. And furthermore, the presentation of races here matches the approach taken with character races in the last three books, as well as in recent Unearthed Arcana releases.

Having a core archetype for races and such makes sense for a multiversal approach... but if this new book is an example of what that will look like, it's not encouraging. A few sentences containing some biology or a stereotype is a significant downgrade from the books this drew on, not only giving players much less inspiration, but also magnifying some of the issues that folks had with the previous presentations (such as essentialism).

Now, Fizban's suggests that they can find a way to include inspirational lore while still including that multiversal flexibility... though it still has some of the same issues as this new book (we learn little about the gem dragonborn, for example). And for all we know that may have been a last gasp of an older approach, partially reworked into the new paradigm.

I guess we'll see what happens in the next two years, though.

 

[Weiley31]

It's certainly possible that Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse is an anomaly, since it's a compilation and update of previously published material. But it's also clear that these new versions are meant to replace, not supplement, the originals. And furthermore, the presentation of races here matches the approach taken with character races in the last three books, as well as in recent Unearthed Arcana releases.

Having a core archetype for races and such makes sense for a multiversal approach... but if this new book is an example of what that will look like, it's not encouraging. A few sentences containing some biology or a stereotype is a significant downgrade from the books this drew on, not only giving players much less inspiration, but also magnifying some of the issues that folks had with the previous presentations (such as essentialism).

Now, Fizban's suggests that they can find a way to include inspirational lore while still including that multiversal flexibility... though it still has some of the same issues as this new book (we learn little about the gem dragonborn, for example). And for all we know that may have been a last gasp of an older approach, partially reworked into the new paradigm.

I guess we'll see what happens in the next two years, though.

I don't know: I still think both versions of Kobold and Hobgoblin can still be used in 5E games, outside of RAW only tables and Adventurer League.

 

[JEB]

I don't know: I still think both versions of Kobold and Hobgoblin can still be used in 5E games, outside of RAW only tables and Adventurer League.

Sure, in the same sense you can use Unearthed Arcana material, or D&D Next material, or third-party material, or conversions from older editions or from other games, or entirely homebrew material.

Also, those two exceptions are rather large ones, aren't they?

 

[Weiley31]

Sure, in the same sense you can use Unearthed Arcana material, or D&D Next material, or third-party material, or conversions from older editions or from other games, or entirely homebrew material.

Also, those two exceptions are rather large ones, aren't they?

I view the original 5E Kobolds as the regular, run of the mill standard Kobolds in Kobold society. The UA(New) version of the Kobolds are the ones who are Dragonwrought Kobolds who are more awakened to dragon blood in their veins. The original 5E Hobgoblin are the Lawful Evil samurai Klingons we're all familiar with while the UA(New) Hobgoblins are those who ditched that Military Draft.

 

[JEB]

I view the original 5E Kobolds as the regular, run of the mill standard Kobolds in Kobold society. The UA(New) version of the Kobolds are the ones who are Dragonwrought Kobolds who are more awakened to dragon blood in their veins. The original 5E Hobgoblin are the Lawful Evil samurai Klingons we're all familiar with while the UA(New) Hobgoblins are those who ditched that Military Draft.

And that's fine homebrew lore for your games. But technically that's not supported by the new official lore, which only presents one approach to those races. If they'd mentioned alternative approaches like that, on the other hand...

Going back to your previous post, though, you do raise a very interesting question: how will Adventurers League handle this? Theoretically they could let people pick either Volo's or MOTM versions from here on, but they banned SCAG and EEPC in 2020. Will Volo's and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes be banned as well, in favor of MOTM? Their decision there could indicate a lot.

EDIT: Checked the FAQ on their site and noticed this, which could be relevant: "The most current version of any rule is used - even if
it’s reprinted in another book."

 

[Weiley31]

Going back to your previous post, though, you do raise a very interesting question: how will Adventurers League handle this? Theoretically they could let people pick either Volo's or MOTM versions from here on, but they banned SCAG and EEPC in 2020. Will Volo's and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes be banned as well, in favor of MOTM? Their decision there could indicate a lot.

Well, something tells me that they'll probably go with the latest version because its Adventurers League. But because I could two chairs care less where Adventurer League knows where it can go at this point.

I'll actually be legit surprise, though, if they do allow people to choose which versions they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, something tells me that they'll probably go with the latest version because its Adventurers League. But because I could two chairs care less where Adventurer League knows where it can go at this point.

I'll actually be legit surprise, though, if they do allow people to choose which versions they want.

I think the more interesting question how they'll handle D&D Beyond. I suspect a lot if users are going to see content they paid for changed.

 

[Weiley31]

I think the more interesting question how they'll handle D&D Beyond. I suspect a lot if users are going to see content they paid for changed.

I would not be surprised: thank goodness I've yet to jump to the digital era of DND.

All I need to get is a copy of Volo's Guide to Monsters and I'll be all set on the 5E races.