D&D 5E A Compilation of all the Race Changes in Monsters of the Multiverse

Over on Reddit, user KingJackel went through the video leak which came out a few days ago and manually compiled a list of all the changes to races in the book. The changes are quite extensive, with only the fairy and harengon remaining unchanged. The book contains 33 races in total, compiled and updated from previous Dungeons & Dragons books.

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...

www.enworld.org

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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that is a bold statement. The actual change is minor.
If you look at previewed monster stat blocks, it still tells us advantage vs spells and magical effects.
Probably they made the change for PC races without thinkining too much about it and now all they have to do is add a (spell lvl x tag) behind NPC abilities to fix the issue.
For now, the fix is: if it looks like a spell, treat it as one.

But even if you don’t “fix” it, it just is not a rules change. It’s just new versions of monsters with some different abilities that still…do things that have always existed in 5e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So what would be in this updated realms other than new NPC names? That doesn’t already exist in a printed product?

To be clear, I love the 3e forgotten realms line and owned every one of them at some point or other. Just not sure it needs reprinting again.

The state of regions other than the sword coast. The consequences of the vents of the last hundred years and especially the last decade.

I think at this rate, it's too much of a headache.

Just pick your fave edition of Toril, book/pdf wise, and roll with that.

The idea is, if your favorite edition of Toril is the current timeline, it’s hard to use, say, Sembia, without basically rebuilding the region on your own. At which point, why use FR at all if it isn’t saving me any time?

What is the fallout of the fall of Netheril in the Eastern Heartands? What is the current state of Myth Drannor?

How has the Bedine culture changed as a result of 100 years of fertile land and urbanization?

Is there a significant Netherese diaspora?

Also wider questions are unanswered, like are there still earthmotes? If not, what happened to them?

It’s not the same thing as a setting that has just never had this information. Dramatic things happened a decade ago within the setting, and…we have little idea how that has affected the people who experienced those events.

 

[Older Beholder]

Short rests? If a class is based on short rests and all these races are based on Pb, then why do short rests for that one player? What’s the benefit?

A short rest gives everyone a chance to use Hit Dice to recover Hit Points as well. This can determine when a group will need to take short rests, as much as the need for short rest ability recovery.

 

[Aldarc]

Even Elric is a bit too mundane for me, because he is summoner who summons other beings to do stuff for him.

I would rather play the magical beings.

To actually be the magical archetype is one of the reasons I am fond of psionics and other magical features of D&D.

Elric is still a magical being who performs magic and relies on it, but magic in the world of Melnibone isn't necssarily about spamming flashy spells left and right like a video game MMO or ARPG character. You may want to check out Through Sunken Lands. There's a class that is clearly inspired by Elric: i.e., "the Eldritch Sorcerer-King." It's a Warrior/Mage hybrid that doesn't get spells but does get cantrips and rituals.

That said, one of my chief complaints about how warlocks work in D&D is that the pact-making class doesn't really involve any real ritual summoning or pact-making. It seemingly relegates the archetype's pact-making to an "off-screen past."

Compare this with the Goetic in MCG's Invisible Sun that involves summoning/binding angels, demons, spirits, etc., and then actively bargaining with them for magical favors, arcane knowledge, etc. This is how one mechanically plays the class.

I don't see the point in having the warlock at all in D&D if it doesn't really have any mechanical teeth or "oomph!" that properly reinforces the archetype. One may as well play as a wizard and roleplaying having a fey, diabolic, or eldritch patron. It's the same difference mechanically speaking.

 

[Reynard]

I don’t like that,

That's cool. Like I opened with on this subject, it's just my preference.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have to say I really hate this whole narrative of "grognards vs progressives" like there would be only two camps and you either need to embrace all the changes or oppose all of them. I have though for decades that D&D should be more inclusive and depiction of intelligent species is really problematic. Yet I still want some verisimilitude and simulationism.

Thread has moved quite a ways since you posted this, but it felt warranted to reply nonetheless. So, you want more inclusiveness, but still want verisimilitude and simulationism. This leads to two questions.

First: Verisimilitude to what? Moving to genericized modifiers, for example, is exactly meant to represent the fact that even if there is a "norm" or an "expectation," there's always going to be outliers and divergences. That's part of what inclusivity generally represents, awareness that truly "average" people don't actually exist.(See, for example, the results produced by Lt. Gilbert S. Daniels' Anthropometry of Flying Personnel, which specifically led to the development of things like adjustable seats. Even if you can say with objective certainty that the average dragonborn is physically stronger, taller, more persuasive, hardier, etc. etc. compared to an average human...the odds are actually strongly in favor of no individual dragonborn actually fulfilling all of those things.

Human variability is already so wide that even with tens of millions of individuals, no average people may exist. For example, the average Australian in their 2011 census, would have been a 37-year-old woman, living with her husband, 9-year-old son, and 6-year-old daughter, in a three-bedroom house in one of the state capital cities of Australia, with two cars. No such woman existed at the time, despite having done their best to survey the entier over-22-million population of the country. Even using the most relaxed and minimal definitions they could in the more recent 2016 census, Matt Parker reported that they could only find ~400 Australians out of 23.4 million that were very loosely average--and all of them would be eliminated by adding even a single extra criterion.

The "truth" that you wish to have similarity to--that there are clear, identifiable, and consistent trends across variable populations--simply isn't true. Perhaps, if you just pick two or maybe three things to filter for, you can get a reasonable slice that are "average." But for most actual groups, truly average people are rare...and when you're looking at Adventurers, there's even less reason for them to be Truly Average to begin with.

Second: Simulation of what? There are no other sapient races on Earth, so let's say you're asking of simulation of human-like entities. But that leads straight into the problem above--human variability is too great to capture with averages, even very very coarse ones. If not, then you're asking for simulation of things that don't exist. What parameters should one use for simulating nonexistent things? How do we model them? More importantly, how do we actually check our simulations to see if they produce appropriate results?

Note that I am not trying to say that verisimilitude and simulationism are bad things to seek. In principle, they're quite good ones, since it is generally helpful to have background elements or characteristics that are familiar enough to work from. My point is more, where do we draw the lines such that verisimilitude and simulationism actually conflict with inclusivity? From where I'm standing, a rational and empirical view of the way things really are in our world--the basis on which verisimilitude and simulationism necessarily must be built--actually seems to say that a pretty inclusive attitude with regard to ability scores is reasonable, even desirable, due to more accurately representing the ways real populations look.

And other than ability scores...it's not like that much is changing in terms of capabilities. Skills remain a clear difference between races, for instance, and can represent physiological differences that make certain tasks easier, e.g. all Elf races get Keen Senses, providing Perception proficiency. Physiology often remains relevant in terms of statures, natural weapons/armor, or innate defenses against certain kinds of spells or effects. Rates of aging and maturity remain different (e.g., dragonborn mature extremely quickly compared to humans), and dietary differences may be relevant in some cases. One of the few physiological differences being removed is Sunlight Sensitivity, and that's probably just because it's more an annoyance than an actual limitation.

 

[Stoutstien]

Thread has moved quite a ways since you posted this, but it felt warranted to reply nonetheless. So, you want more inclusiveness, but still want verisimilitude and simulationism. This leads to two questions.

First: Verisimilitude to what? Moving to genericized modifiers, for example, is exactly meant to represent the fact that even if there is a "norm" or an "expectation," there's always going to be outliers and divergences. That's part of what inclusivity generally represents, awareness that truly "average" people don't actually exist.(See, for example, the results produced by Lt. Gilbert S. Daniels' Anthropometry of Flying Personnel, which specifically led to the development of things like adjustable seats. Even if you can say with objective certainty that the average dragonborn is physically stronger, taller, more persuasive, hardier, etc. etc. compared to an average human...the odds are actually strongly in favor of no individual dragonborn actually fulfilling all of those things.

Human variability is already so wide that even with tens of millions of individuals, no average people may exist. For example, the average Australian in their 2011 census, would have been a 37-year-old woman, living with her husband, 9-year-old son, and 6-year-old daughter, in a three-bedroom house in one of the state capital cities of Australia, with two cars. No such woman existed at the time, despite having done their best to survey the entier over-22-million population of the country. Even using the most relaxed and minimal definitions they could in the more recent 2016 census, Matt Parker reported that they could only find ~400 Australians out of 23.4 million that were very loosely average--and all of them would be eliminated by adding even a single extra criterion.

The "truth" that you wish to have similarity to--that there are clear, identifiable, and consistent trends across variable populations--simply isn't true. Perhaps, if you just pick two or maybe three things to filter for, you can get a reasonable slice that are "average." But for most actual groups, truly average people are rare...and when you're looking at Adventurers, there's even less reason for them to be Truly Average to begin with.

Second: Simulation of what? There are no other sapient races on Earth, so let's say you're asking of simulation of human-like entities. But that leads straight into the problem above--human variability is too great to capture with averages, even very very coarse ones. If not, then you're asking for simulation of things that don't exist. What parameters should one use for simulating nonexistent things? How do we model them? More importantly, how do we actually check our simulations to see if they produce appropriate results?

Note that I am not trying to say that verisimilitude and simulationism are bad things to seek. In principle, they're quite good ones, since it is generally helpful to have background elements or characteristics that are familiar enough to work from. My point is more, where do we draw the lines such that verisimilitude and simulationism actually conflict with inclusivity? From where I'm standing, a rational and empirical view of the way things really are in our world--the basis on which verisimilitude and simulationism necessarily must be built--actually seems to say that a pretty inclusive attitude with regard to ability scores is reasonable, even desirable, due to more accurately representing the ways real populations look.

And other than ability scores...it's not like that much is changing in terms of capabilities. Skills remain a clear difference between races, for instance, and can represent physiological differences that make certain tasks easier, e.g. all Elf races get Keen Senses, providing Perception proficiency. Physiology often remains relevant in terms of statures, natural weapons/armor, or innate defenses against certain kinds of spells or effects. Rates of aging and maturity remain different (e.g., dragonborn mature extremely quickly compared to humans), and dietary differences may be relevant in some cases. One of the few physiological differences being removed is Sunlight Sensitivity, and that's probably just because it's more an annoyance than an actual limitation.

Someone is a fan of QI but yeah that's the problem with PC creation when trying to find a good point of reference with the rest of the game logic. It's one of those things that will always leave half the player base that care about such things dissatisfied.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because a character with racial PB-based abilities with a class that has short rest abilities still needs short rests? Because the party recognizes that the Battle Master is more effective after a short rest? Or the warlock?

Maybe I don't understand the problem.

In the short term that's true. In the longer term, though moving away from short rests to PB calls into question whether the short rest design will be retained in DND2024. I don't think it's guaranteed either way by this change though. Using PB/day or similar simply makes it easier to measure and balance these abilities.

However, the short-rest/long rest issue is one of the major sticking points of 5E, and if they wanted to sever the Gordian knot on that, one method might be to simply eliminate short-rest as a general mechanic. There are various approaches you could then take. The obvious one is giving people the base number + 2x short rest's worth of abilities per day. Alternatively, you could give classes which currently tie into short rest their own reset mechanics, like maybe Monks meditate for 10 minutes up to 2/day to regen Ki, Battlemasters sit and plan tactics for 10 minutes up to 2/day or whatever to get their dice back and so on. That way you eliminate the need to take a 1hr break in the middle of a dungeon just because someone needs resources back, and you'd really reduce the issues with balancing shorter adventuring days.

I suspect they'll retain a 1hr "HP regain" short rest though - it's just that cutting everything except HP away from that would make things a lot easier to balance.

 

[Hussar]

Elric is still a magical being who performs magic and relies on it, but magic in the world of Melnibone isn't necssarily about spamming flashy spells left and right like a video game MMO or ARPG character. You may want to check out Through Sunken Lands. There's a class that is clearly inspired by Elric: i.e., "the Eldritch Sorcerer-King." It's a Warrior/Mage hybrid that doesn't get spells but does get cantrips and rituals.

That said, one of my chief complaints about how warlocks work in D&D is that the pact-making class doesn't really involve any real ritual summoning or pact-making. It seemingly relegates the archetype's pact-making to an "off-screen past."

Compare this with the Goetic in MCG's Invisible Sun that involves summoning/binding angels, demons, spirits, etc., and then actively bargaining with them for magical favors, arcane knowledge, etc. This is how one mechanically plays the class.

I don't see the point in having the warlock at all in D&D if it doesn't really have any mechanical teeth or "oomph!" that properly reinforces the archetype. One may as well play as a wizard and roleplaying having a fey, diabolic, or eldritch patron. It's the same difference mechanically speaking.

I have long bemoaned the loss of the Binder. To me, that was the best kind of "warlock" the game ever had. TONS of flavor, easy to use in play, and just boatloads of fun. And incredibly versatile. That they chucked the Binder under the bus and stole his lunch and gave it to the 5e warlock is a travesty.

I mean, heck, in my current campaign I have a warlock and, as a DM, I'm pretty much at a loss over what I'm supposed to do with it. I don't want to step on the player's toes and the player hasn't really brought up the patron in play, other than the fact that he has one. So, basically, he's just another generic cleric with a different spell list, spamming pew pew laser beams every round. Great character, but, the great character has pretty much nothing to do with the fact that it's a warlock.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thread has moved quite a ways since you posted this, but it felt warranted to reply nonetheless. So, you want more inclusiveness, but still want verisimilitude and simulationism. This leads to two questions.

First: Verisimilitude to what? Moving to genericized modifiers, for example, is exactly meant to represent the fact that even if there is a "norm" or an "expectation," there's always going to be outliers and divergences. That's part of what inclusivity generally represents, awareness that truly "average" people don't actually exist.(See, for example, the results produced by Lt. Gilbert S. Daniels' Anthropometry of Flying Personnel, which specifically led to the development of things like adjustable seats. Even if you can say with objective certainty that the average dragonborn is physically stronger, taller, more persuasive, hardier, etc. etc. compared to an average human...the odds are actually strongly in favor of no individual dragonborn actually fulfilling all of those things.

Human variability is already so wide that even with tens of millions of individuals, no average people may exist. For example, the average Australian in their 2011 census, would have been a 37-year-old woman, living with her husband, 9-year-old son, and 6-year-old daughter, in a three-bedroom house in one of the state capital cities of Australia, with two cars. No such woman existed at the time, despite having done their best to survey the entier over-22-million population of the country. Even using the most relaxed and minimal definitions they could in the more recent 2016 census, Matt Parker reported that they could only find ~400 Australians out of 23.4 million that were very loosely average--and all of them would be eliminated by adding even a single extra criterion.

The "truth" that you wish to have similarity to--that there are clear, identifiable, and consistent trends across variable populations--simply isn't true. Perhaps, if you just pick two or maybe three things to filter for, you can get a reasonable slice that are "average." But for most actual groups, truly average people are rare...and when you're looking at Adventurers, there's even less reason for them to be Truly Average to begin with.

Second: Simulation of what? There are no other sapient races on Earth, so let's say you're asking of simulation of human-like entities. But that leads straight into the problem above--human variability is too great to capture with averages, even very very coarse ones. If not, then you're asking for simulation of things that don't exist. What parameters should one use for simulating nonexistent things? How do we model them? More importantly, how do we actually check our simulations to see if they produce appropriate results?

Note that I am not trying to say that verisimilitude and simulationism are bad things to seek. In principle, they're quite good ones, since it is generally helpful to have background elements or characteristics that are familiar enough to work from. My point is more, where do we draw the lines such that verisimilitude and simulationism actually conflict with inclusivity? From where I'm standing, a rational and empirical view of the way things really are in our world--the basis on which verisimilitude and simulationism necessarily must be built--actually seems to say that a pretty inclusive attitude with regard to ability scores is reasonable, even desirable, due to more accurately representing the ways real populations look.

And other than ability scores...it's not like that much is changing in terms of capabilities. Skills remain a clear difference between races, for instance, and can represent physiological differences that make certain tasks easier, e.g. all Elf races get Keen Senses, providing Perception proficiency. Physiology often remains relevant in terms of statures, natural weapons/armor, or innate defenses against certain kinds of spells or effects. Rates of aging and maturity remain different (e.g., dragonborn mature extremely quickly compared to humans), and dietary differences may be relevant in some cases. One of the few physiological differences being removed is Sunlight Sensitivity, and that's probably just because it's more an annoyance than an actual limitation.

I mean I'm sure I've said all this about seven thousand times already in other threads, and everyone is tired of hearing it an no one is going to change their minds, but if you insist:

So what you seem to have missed is that we're not talking about just humans. We're talking about literal different species with drastically different physical proportions and biologies.

Are bears stronger than wolves? Argument here is that, well, because there is so much individual variation and some bears might be very weak and some wolves might be really strong it is really impossible to say. And frankly, that's just nonsense.

The idea that all these creatures of wildly different sizes would have the exact same range of capabilities is simply absurd. If a noob player would look at a picture of D&D species, and then read the description of ability scores, do you think they would expect all the species to be equal in all abilities? Or would they perhaps think that for example a species over twice the height and ten times the body mass of another might be stronger? That's the lack of verisimilitude there. The rules become disconnected from the intuitive assumptions, they become dull numbers than represent nothing. And some people don't mind such a disconnect. But I very much do.

And I haven't ever heard similar concern raised in other franchises. I have never heard anyone complain that it might be problematic that Wookiees are stronger than Ewoks or that in Glorantha the Uz have different ability scores than the Aldyrami.

But yes, I get that some parallels to the real world issue can be drawn. In the real world it is indeed very terrible to say people of ethnicity X are better at certain thing than people of ethnicity Y. And that these are fictional species that actually are different from each other rather than human ethnicities might not be enough to stop it being an uncomfortable parallel. But if that is truly how it is, then we simply shouldn't have fictional species at all. If 'species X tend to be better at a thing than a species Y' is an offensive concept in fiction, it is so whether that difference is represented via an ASI, a trait or just exist in the fluff.

Now I understand that due how D&D is designed main ability scores are fairly important, and I understand that on balance grounds several people wanted there to be more customisability. And that is as understandable desire. But I feel that hijacking the discussion about representation and social issues to demand a specific mechanic is frankly bizarre, and personally to me it even seems rather disingenuous.

So yea, what I want is a game where orks are nuanced complex people instead of caricature evil mooks, but where they still can be physiologically different from humans and where that difference will be represented mechanically, including via ability scores.