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

 

[Cadence]

No, because the strongest half-orc is either going to be a PC (in which case, and if there's also the strongest gnome in the world, the two players can discuss how they want to handle this) or an NPC (in which case, the DM can say that this NPC has a Strength of, say, 24, which no PC can hope to achieve without certain magics).

What's to discuss? The gnome works to a 20 STR, the Half-orc works to a 20 STR, and so when they arm wrestle or do something strengthy,they should be equal, right? Or is there some reason one or the other would get an advantage/disadvantage? Why would a DM make an NPC just to be sure the half-orc was stronger than the gnome? ... Unless half-orcs are supposed to be innately stronger as a group, or something, right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Exactly. That is the point.

If it is then the post I was replying to made no sense.

But that was the case in 5e from the beginning. Everyone peaks at 20 in STR for example. It seems however, that many people want it sooner and that is ok.

How is the above a statement making the same point I was making? It treats a bonus to strength and a bonus to athletics as the same thing, with which i strongly disagree.

 

[Uta-napishti]

I dunno, the technological edge of the Romulan Star Empire in spite of a bananas political system suggests a possible superior brainpower, which isn't necessarily as problematic when discussing green blooded space aliens. Though Star Trek is pretty rife with problematic ideas, when push comes to shove.

I dunno if it's an intelligence difference or simply originating on a planet where everything evolved earlier. I think the fact that the Romulans left Vulcan, 1) Nearly 2000 years before the Star Trek series' time 2) after a planetary nuclear war, 3) in their interstellar space ships 4) to found their own civilization on a faraway planet indicates a giant head start on humans -- who were still poking each other with pointy metal bits to establish dominance at that time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If it is then the post I was replying to made no sense.

How is the above a statement making the same point I was making? It treats a bonus to strength and a bonus to athletics as the same thing, with which i strongly disagree.

Now you lost me.

Maybe I replied to the wrong post in the first place. Didn't you say a bonus to athletics is better than a strength bonus, because everone now can train to be as athletic as someone who is naturally gifted and gets it for free. ?
I just mentioned, that in 5e because of capped stats anyone can get to str 20 no matter if they got a bonus to str or not.

So in 5 from the beginning, everyone being eventually equally capable was built in from the beginning. Since tasha, you can now keep up from level 1 in combat prowess (derived from high str or dex).

So I think the newer approach is fine, because now you don't have to dump stats and select a subrace you don't like as much just because you desperately want a certain stat array.
I can tell you that I will still do my goliath bard with 16 Str and only 14 charisma. But his time I might also get the secondary stats I want.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Now you lost me.

Maybe I replied to the wrong post in the first place. Didn't you say a bonus to athletics is better than a strength bonus, because everone now can train to be as athletic as someone who is naturally gifted and gets it for free. ?
I just mentioned, that in 5e because of capped stats anyone can get to str 20 no matter if they got a bonus to str or not.

And I pointed out that the two were obviously different, to which you replied “yeah that’s my point”.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, Goliaths should get a bigger bonus. So let's do that.

On the other hand if the conclusion is that ability scores don't simulate anything, then it is time to delete them. The purpose of rules is to mechanically represent the fictional reality. If they cannot do that, they serve no purpose.

Why? The limit is 20, so a bigger bonus doesn't actually do anything.

The ability scores have NEVER simulated anything. It's this insistince on D&D simulating things that is, and always has, caused all the problems.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, it’s actually been an issue. That’s what all the arguing is about. If it wasn’t, then nobody would have felt the need to argue for Tasha’s changes. They’d have been content to be a point or two off the optimized stat. But there have been quite a few people on these boards saying they basically can‘t or won’t play a character without the advantageous ASI for their class.

But, you still GET ASI's right? You just choose where to put them.

So, what's the difference here?

Or did I miss something? I thought it was still floating +2/+1 at first level.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why? The limit is 20, so a bigger bonus doesn't actually do anything.

Sure. Increase the cap for them as well. That would make sense.

The ability scores have NEVER simulated anything.

Ability Scores
Six Abilities provide a quick description of every creature’s physical and mental characteristics:

• Strength, measuring physical power
• Dexterity, measuring agility
• Constitution, measuring endurance
• Intelligence, measuring reasoning and memory
• Wisdom, measuring Perception and Insight
• Charisma, measuring force of Personality

Is a character muscle-bound and insightful? Brilliant and charming? Nimble and hardy? Ability Scores define these qualities—a creature’s assets as well as weaknesses.

To me this very much sounds like they're supposed to simulate the creature's capability in the described areas. Is the PHB lying to me?

It's this insistince on D&D simulating things that is, and always has, caused all the problems.

Why on earth would we have rules in an RPG otherwise? If the rules do not represent the fictional reality, what purpose they have? I am not interested in the game as some disconnected mathematical exercise.

 

[Faolyn]

What's to discuss? The gnome works to a 20 STR, the Half-orc works to a 20 STR, and so when they arm wrestle or do something strengthy,they should be equal, right? Or is there some reason one or the other would get an advantage/disadvantage? Why would a DM make an NPC just to be sure the half-orc was stronger than the gnome? ... Unless half-orcs are supposed to be innately stronger as a group, or something, right?

Beats me. Maybe the half-orc doesn't care about the title of "World's Strongest." Maybe the gnome does. Maybe neither of them take the title and just have a high Strength for class purposes. Maybe they decide their characters have a rivalry of sorts. If there's nothing to discuss, then it doesn't matter that they have equal Strength scores, or even if the gnome has a 20 and the orc has a 19.

If the DM wants there to be a really strong NPC, then they can make sure that there is one. If the DM wants the strongest humanoid in the world to be a half-orc, then they can do that. If the DM wants the strongest humanoid to be a gnome, then they can do that as well. In either case, it doesn't matter what the PC's Strength is, because the DM can set the NPC's Strength to whatever they want it to be.

In all cases, the Strength of the PC has nothing to do with the average, typical, or high Strength of the race as a whole.

 

[Malmuria]

Why on earth would we have rules in an RPG otherwise? If the rules do not represent the fictional reality, what purpose they have? I am not interested in the game as some disconnected mathematical exercise.

Sure, Goliaths should get a bigger bonus. So let's do that.

On the other hand if the conclusion is that ability scores don't simulate anything, then it is time to delete them. The purpose of rules is to mechanically represent the fictional reality. If they cannot do that, they serve no purpose.

I don't think it follows that getting rid of racial ASI/limits means that ability scores don't simulate anything. Part of the point of ability scores is to simulate a fictional reality, but those mechanics also exist for fun gameplay and to facilitate storytelling. You could add in all sorts of modifications, qualifiers, and subsystems that would make the game more like 1e, or even 3e, but at the expense of other aspects of gameplay. For example, you might easily argue that the skill system needs more skills, more levels of granularity in skill proficiency, ability to learn new skills, etc. Those mechanics could be added in either for the sake of gameplay "crunch," or to better simulate how a character's talents and abilities would actually work, but at the expense of making the game more complicated and slower to run.

Personally I prefer a rules lite approach, where the DM in collaboration with the table can figure out what's "realistic" for their world on a case by case basis.