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...

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.

greg-rutkowski-monsters-of-the-multiverse-1920.jpg



 

log in or register to remove this ad

"Trance
  • When you now finish a long rest, this trait allows you to gain two proficiencies that you don't have. Each must be in a weapon or tool of your choice that is in the PHB. These proficiencies last until you take a long rest."
Is it weird that this excludes skills?

There are already enough complaints about the five minutes workday without having elves joining the wizard in calling for a break after every move. "We could shop ?" "Wait! Let's have a long rest so I can trance and get proficiency appropriate for haggling!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm sorry, I can't parse that. Can you restate?

----
@Mordhau basically has the right of it. Even that fighter, losing a +1 on attacks isn't going to be all that noticeable. An easy way to see is to track your attacks next session. How often did you hit by exactly the right number? It should be 5%. Which means that 95% of the time, that +1 has no actual impact on the game.

So, basically, arguing that halflings should be -1 to big races is arguing about that 5%. Now, it might be a bit more noticeable with strength simply because you make so many attack rolls. But, again, at the absolute outside, it's only actually affecting 1 roll in 20 hits. So about 1 roll in 30 (ish).

From a simulationist standpoint, it simply isn't important enough to make any difference. Most of the difference will be at very low levels, and even then, mostly just psychological.
Right. So why we have ability scores if in actual play their impact is not noticeable? You say 'for the game' but if people are unable to notice their impact in the game, then how would they matter?
 

I wonder why they keep ASI in races at this point, if everyone has floating ASIs, what's the point of duplicating the text about +2/+1 in each and every race instead of having : roll 4d6, drop lowest, assign then add a 2 and a 1 as part of stat generation process?
 

I wonder why they keep ASI in races at this point, if everyone has floating ASIs, what's the point of duplicating the text about +2/+1 in each and every race instead of having : roll 4d6, drop lowest, assign then add a 2 and a 1 ?
No point. It is system aesthetically really clumsy. With point buy it is even more awkward. You first by scores with one method then buy three more points with other method.
 


Right. So why we have ability scores if in actual play their impact is not noticeable? You say 'for the game' but if people are unable to notice their impact in the game, then how would they matter?
I think what's difficult to notice is where the ability score bonus is coming from. ASI may but does not necessarily yield an actual bonus to the roll (because you get a +1 for every two pts increase to ability); proficiency bonus, even at 1st level, is twice as impactful as racial ASI and goes up from there; expertise makes your prob bns 4x more impactful than racial asi at 1st level; jack of all trades is equal in impact to racial asi but for all skills; past 4th level you have as much ASI from class as from race. Then there's the inherent randomness of the d20: the time when racial ASI has the greatest impact in terms of bonuses (levels 1-3) are also the levels where bad rolls can't be overcome by really high bonuses in particular skills. In 5e, to create an archetype that is reliable successful at the things they should be successful at takes some intentionality.

fwiw, I know these are rhetorical questions, but a number of dnd-esque games take them seriously in their design. What happens if we get rid of race (Black Hack), or race and class (Knave), or race and class and half of the ability socres (Into the Odd)? Or...how do we best replicate those classic fantasy archetypes? Turns out race-as-class, from Basic, is the best way to do that.
 

Hussar

Legend
Right. So why we have ability scores if in actual play their impact is not noticeable? You say 'for the game' but if people are unable to notice their impact in the game, then how would they matter?
Tradition? Mostly really. Mathwise, they have pretty much zero impact.

That's why I reject the simulation argument. If there is meant to be a statistically significant difference between two races, then a +1 just isn't going to cut it at all. If the only difference between a goliath and a halfling, for example, is a +1, then it just doesn't actually do what you are claiming it does. It can't. At best, it only impacts 5% of successful die rolls. Which means it would actually impact about 3-4% of die rolls.

Is that significant enough to enforce? Not really, IMO. It just doesn't matter. It certainly isn't simulating anything. If it's meant to enforce archetype, it has to be seen as a very large failure since it isn't actually doing anything other than maybe having a psychological impact.

The racial bonuses would need to be at least as large as a proficiency bonus in order to have any real impact. And that's never going to happen.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
If it is a thing everyone can do, then it is not a way of doing associated with particular species. Like if everyone could get a breath weapon, then that really wouldn't be a dragonborn thing, even if they could take it too, would it?
Who is saying that's going to happen?

Also, there's an enormous difference between saying "this particular halfling is pretty darn strong" and "anyone can take any racial trait they want."


This to me is really unconvincing. And If you feel that the rules for PCs don't need to reflect the reality of their species in the setting, why on earth would this logic only apply to ability scores? Why can't my halfling have breath weapon and my orc brave trait? You still could have all the NPC halflings not have breath weapon and all NPC orcs not have brave. So if PCs are not bound by their species why we have dedicated race splats at all ? I don't get it. o_O
Because ability scores are already variable. Any PC can have any stat be anywhere from 3-18 (or 8-15, without point buy/stat array) before ASIs. Those numbers are all over the place. Even the complete average PC has stats in the 9-11 range, which is still variable. If you roll low on the dice, you can stick it in your "racial stat," if you want, and that's always been allowed. If you roll high, you can stick it in your racial "bad" stat, which is also fully legal.

These have literally been the rules since the very beginning of D&D, and once 3e started and there were no more racial stat minimums and maximums, then there has never been anything stopping you from going as high or as low as your dice or points allow, even if you don't favor your "racial stats". You can, legally, have an orc with Strength 3 and Int 18.

But racial traits are not variable, and never have been. Every orc in 5e has Aggressive and every halfling has Lucky (or whatever they're changing the names to). There has never been any official rule saying that a PC can choose their racial traits from a pool available to all races. Maybe in that 2e Skills & Options line, but that itself was super-optional. Even Tasha's doesn't let you pick from any racial trait; you can only choose a feat (and you technically can't pick a racial feat, since you're not technically a member of that race).

So do you understand it now? Because attributes are already varied, it's fine putting a +2/+1 in a varied attribute.

Also (in case that's not enough), a +2 in one stat is pretty much balanced against a +2 in any other stat. If you put it in Strength, then chances are you're playing a fighter, barbarian, or paladin, and maybe a ranger. If you put it in Intelligence, then you're likely playing a wizard or artificer. Etcetera. You're not going to be OP if you put the +2 in a different stat than the one your race says.

But racial traits aren't balanced against each other. That's why some races have one or two traits and other races have three, four, or more. If you swap out a halfling's Nimble for an aarakocra's Flight (even the new, 30-foot version), then you've unbalanced your character because you still have all Lucky, Brave, and whatever your subrace trait is.

Sure. You chose the one situation where the dex and strength builds are closest to each other, but different weapons still result different imagery and their different ability scores affect different things in other areas. The goliath will be better grappler, the halfling way stealthier. The halfling will use shortbow as their ranged weapon, the goliath a handaxe. These characters will play differently overall, even in combat.
Would they? I imagine halflings as using slings for their ranged weapons, as was the norm until slings became a simple weapon everyone could use. I can't see them as using even shortbows since, y'know, short arms. They can do it by both RAW and RAI, but it's hard for me to picture it. I picture goliaths using spears, or just throwing rocks like a real giant, and only tossing an axe as a last resort. And I picture halflings as being grapplers as well. Leaping onto someone's shoulders, covering their eyes and mouths, etc. They might not be able to keep someone from moving (and inflict the Grappled condition), but hey, Level Up has rules for such things where D&D doesn't.

So see, different weapons still result in different imagery--but you and I have different images.
 

fwiw, I know these are rhetorical questions, but a number of dnd-esque games take them seriously in their design. What happens if we get rid of race (Black Hack), or race and class (Knave), or race and class and half of the ability socres (Into the Odd)? Or...how do we best replicate those classic fantasy archetypes? Turns out race-as-class, from Basic, is the best way to do that.
They're not just rhetorical questions, they're quite real design questions and the examples you cite are valid answers to them. I feel that D&D currently is kinda waffling here, having all these sacred cows but but quite knowing how to use them anymore.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
They're not just rhetorical questions, they're quite real design questions and the examples you cite are valid answers to them. I feel that D&D currently is kinda waffling here, having all these sacred cows but but quite knowing how to use them anymore.
Frankly? I think most of the community doesn't care to be honest. It just isn't that important of an issue. D&D uses 6 stats. Ok. Move on and get back to gaming.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top