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

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Alright. Q: What are racial ability bonuses? A: The trends of populations of fictional beings, on some kind of measure.

Yes.

Q: In a simulation, what data would give us these numbers?
A: The mean ("average") on some set of metrics, e.g. height, mass, lift strength, reaction time, ??? for Charisma, etc.

Q: Is it a correct model of actual population variability to expect that this average represents most members?
A: No, not at all. In fact, even when examining whole populations (not just samples), subjects that meet all requirements to be "average" are rare, even with an insanely broad meaning of "average" like "the middle 50% of all aviators." They may not even exist at all, if too many metrics are used.

Q: Do fixed racial ability scores actually offer simulative or verisimilitudinous benefits?
A: It appears they do not. A simulation which uses them would fail to actually represent the real, measurable variability found in all actual populations of living beings. At least as I understand the term, "verisimilitude" refers to resembling what is true or real, and the true and real thing is that population variability pretty much absolutely trumps the central tendencies ("averages"). It is, in fact, an un-simulative abstraction to treat all members of a population as being like the average of their measured traits.

Sorry, none of things makes any sense. You keep repeating the same thing, but it is an utter non sequitur. That most people are not average has absolutely nothing to do with anything. That most wolves or bears are not average does not in any way or form change the fact that bears are on average way stronger than the wolves and that strongest bears are stronger than the strongest wolves.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That most wolves or bears are not average does not in any way or form change the fact that bears are on average way stronger than the wolves and that strongest bears are stronger than the strongest wolves.

This seems like an attempt to shift the argument away from what it's actually about, which is humanoid beings in a fantasy world. It also helps illustrate how limited D&D's stats are for measuring this sort of thing.

Further, you're still on about STR. That seems to be the only stat you care about. Literally you have no arguments that don't involve STR. DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA can all go to hell, I guess? If your point was valid, you'd be able to argue it about any stat, but you can't. You can only even try to argue it about STR.

I mean, what's got higher DEX, a wolf or a bear? Wolves clearly have extremely quick reflexes, but can't climb for toast. Bears can climb well and do all sorts of dextrous stuff with their paws. What's got higher CON? Bears can probably survive nastier injuries, but wolves likely have better endurance. Who has a higher INT? And so on.

If STR is really the sole concern for you, maybe say so and we can focus on that? If not, lets hear about other stats and why they should have fixed mods.

 

[Cadence]

This seems like an attempt to shift the argument away from what it's actually about, which is humanoid beings in a fantasy world. It also helps illustrate how limited D&D's stats are for measuring this sort of thing.

Further, you're still on about STR. That seems to be the only stat you care about. Literally you have no arguments that don't involve STR. DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA can all go to hell, I guess? If your point was valid, you'd be able to argue it about any stat, but you can't. You can only even try to argue it about STR.

I mean, what's got higher DEX, a wolf or a bear? Wolves clearly have extremely quick reflexes, but can't climb for toast. Bears can climb well and do all sorts of dextrous stuff with their paws. What's got higher CON? Bears can probably survive nastier injuries, but wolves likely have better endurance. Who has a higher INT? And so on.

If STR is really the sole concern for you, maybe say so and we can focus on that? If not, lets hear about other stats and why they should have fixed mods.

I think INT is best removed from the game as players and DMs aren't particularly great at playing it. And, even if a lot of sub-types of IQ (or whatnot) or college preparedness subscales (or whatnot) are highly correlated in the general population, the advanced knowledge folks have (which is where it is used) don't feel like they would be nearly as related (but I haven't studied that). I would split WIS into Perception and Willpower. I would split DEX into at least two abilities, dividing up AC, missile to hit, initiative, and taking melee to hit from STR (there's a thread out there looking for ideas on it).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes.


Sorry, none of things makes any sense. You keep repeating the same thing, but it is an utter non sequitur. That most people are not average has absolutely nothing to do with anything. That most wolves or bears are not average does not in any way or form change the fact that bears are on average way stronger than the wolves and that strongest bears are stronger than the strongest wolves.

So...where do these numbers come from? How are you saying "X race has <stat> far enough above/below baseline that a modifier is required"? These numbers don't just appear from nowhere. They come from something. That's the whole point of simulationism: numbers come from something, they're not just there because we declare they're there.

If they don't come from the average measurements of that race, what on earth DO they come from?

 

[Jer]

I think INT is best removed from the game as players and DMs aren't particularly great at playing it. And, even if a lot of sub-types of IQ (or whatnot) or college preparedness subscales (or whatnot) are highly correlated in the general population, the advanced knowledge folks have (which is where it is used) don't feel like they would be nearly as related (but I haven't studied that). I would split WIS into Perception and Willpower. I would split DEX into at least two abilities, dividing up AC, melee to hit, initiative, and taking melee to hit from STR (there's a thread out there looking for ideas on it).

Just realize that none of this is going to happen because D&D has six stats and they are the six stats that have been in the game since is was created. They will never change or get rid of any of those stats because culturally even outside of D&D those are the things that people know about the game.

They can't even bite the bullet and get rid of the 3-18 range on stats and move to just the bonuses for the stats despite the numerical stats having almost no impact on the game except for those bonuses (and where they do have an impact it's a design choice made to keep the number relevant). Because "everyone knows" that an 18 Strength in D&D is a "thing", while a +4 Strength is only a thing to those of us who play the game.

The reason why we have the stats we have is because it isn't perceived as D&D without those stats. The reason why we have stat bonuses for races is because originally races had racial maximums/minimums and when they went to 3e they tried to modernize that and moved it to bonuses and penalties. And every iteration they keep trying to find some mechanic that keeps some kind of nebulous "feel" of D&D while not being a terrible mechanic.

Call em sacred cows, call them cultural knowledge. You're as likely to get rid of saving throws and hit points as you are the six ability scores.

(Even 4e - which slaughtered as many sacred cows as they thought they could - refused to budge on the six ability scores and the numerical scores for them. Because there's a recognition that they're too baked into the game as culture to change them.)

 

[Cadence]

Just realize that none of this is going to happen because D&D has six stats and they are the six stats that have been in the game since is was created. They will never change or get rid of any of those stats because culturally even outside of D&D those are the things that people know about the game.

Definitely. I was just noting that some of us that are concerned about strength here are concerned about other abilities too.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think INT is best removed from the game as players and DMs aren't particularly great at playing it. And, even if a lot of sub-types of IQ (or whatnot) or college preparedness subscales (or whatnot) are highly correlated in the general population, the advanced knowledge folks have (which is where it is used) don't feel like they would be nearly as related (but I haven't studied that). I would split WIS into Perception and Willpower. I would split DEX into at least two abilities, dividing up AC, melee to hit, initiative, and taking melee to hit from STR (there's a thread out there looking for ideas on it).

Agreed.

Even for lore. Why do we even have Lore check? You know that stuff or you dont. A cleric should not have to roll to recall stuff about their religion. Druid should just ''know'' about animal and stuff, rangers should just ''know'' everything about their favored foe/terrain. And if the character does not have access to a piece of lore from its background/class/race? Well that's a good excuse to use the Research downtime activity or go adventuring for that piece of lore! Or use mostly kinda useless features like Know your Enemy and Hunter's Eye! Use a ritual to ask a Power for that info!

 

[Cadence]

Agreed.

Even for lore. Why do we even have Lore check? You know that stuff or you dont. A cleric should not have to roll to recall stuff about their religion. Druid should just ''know'' about animal and stuff, rangers should just ''know'' everything about their favored foe/terrain. And if the character does not have access to a piece of lore from its background/class/race? Well that's a good excuse to use the Research downtime activity or go adventuring for that piece of lore! Or use mostly kinda useless features like Know your Enemy and Hunter's Eye! Use a ritual to ask a Power for that info!

I've taken to not calling for rolls at all (or even waiting for the PC to ask) when there is something they might no (pointing out to the ranger that something ahead looked odd, to the cleric that the symbol of the god of ____ was over there and what that god stood for). For "trivia" I still have been giving a roll.

I haven't thought it through, but I can see a game without INT using 10 + modifier based on class relevance as the base for knowledge checks. So, a Cleric might get a base of 13, but 10 on most things. etc...

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I've taken to not calling for rolls at all (or even waiting for the PC to ask) when there is something they might no (pointing out to the ranger that something ahead looked odd, to the cleric that the symbol of the god of ____ was over there and what that god stood for). For "trivia" I still have been giving a roll.

I haven't thought it through, but I can see a game without INT using 10 + modifier based on class relevance as the base for knowledge checks. So, a Cleric might get a base of 13, but 10 on most things. etc...

I've already moved cultural knowledge to the Language proficiencies, so a Dwarf is proficient in Dwarf culture: he can speak and read dwarven, know about their general history and etiquette.

 

[Aldarc]

One of the many things I like about Level Up is that race matters throughout your career. At 10th, you get to make a choice to improve a heritage ability or gain a new one.

This is actually approach that Shadow of the Demon Lord* and Pathfinder 2 take. You may want to check out those games as well.

* I do believe, however, that ancestry benefits at later levels and ancestry-based attribute bonuses are going the way of the dodo in Schwalb's upcoming Shadow of the Weird Wizard. Ancestries still confer traits.