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

 

[Aldarc]

As you say, they had a formula that worked with 2014 5E, appealing to both old and new players; now they're changing that formula to focus mainly on the new players, or at least on what they think new players want. (Not that they'll ever admit that; they obviously want as many people as possible to keep buying the books, so such an admission would be foolish.)

And this is the gamble. Are they making changes that truly appeal to the majority of the 5E community, setting the stage for continued success? Or are they setting the stage for a wave of "5E grognards" (as someone on Reddit put it) who decide to ignore new releases after a certain point, perhaps even seeking out alternatives? Time will tell.

Incidentally, I suspect a lot will actually depend less on the 5E player base as a whole, and more what 5E's DM population thinks of the new paradigm. You need DMs to run D&D games, and DMs that are done with modern 5E are likely to take some or all of their players with them...

IMHO, the winning formula for what makes 5e work for many people doesn't rest (even remotely) on fixed attribute bonuses for lineages or fixed alignments for humanoid monsters.

 

[JEB]

IMHO, the winning formula for what makes 5e work for many people doesn't rest (even remotely) on fixed attribute bonuses for lineages or fixed alignments for humanoid monsters.

Well, considering monster alignments went from completely deleted to largely restored over the course of one year, it seems Wizards concluded alignment was part of the winning formula!

Anyway, don't underestimate the cumulative psychological effect of multiple small changes, nor people's guesses about what those changes may signal for the future of the game. Not to mention other larger issues folks have noted, like the shifts on canon policy, changes to or reduction of lore, etc.

The old formula relied on familiarity for old fans while establishing norms for new fans; the new formula is changing that in noticeable ways and is sure to change even more over the next two years. For the new paradigm to succeed with existing 5E fans, they have to see it as an overall improvement. If enough don't, we're going to see splits in the 5E community.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, considering monster alignments went from completely deleted to largely restored over the course of one year, it seems Wizards concluded alignment was part of the winning formula!

Anyway, don't underestimate the cumulative psychological effect of multiple small changes, nor people's guesses about what those changes may signal for the future of the game. Not to mention other larger issues folks have noted, like the shifts on canon policy, changes to or reduction of lore, etc.

The old formula relied on familiarity for old fans while establishing norms for new fans; the new formula is changing that in noticeable ways and is sure to change even more over the next two years. For the new paradigm to succeed with existing 5E fans, they have to see it as an overall improvement. If enough don't, we're going to see splits in the 5E community.

I think the will test a bit and will fimd a good middle ground. They were quite good in doing that over the course of 5e.
What they won't do is reverting inclusiveness and the divide between culture and race.
I hope for final 5.5e or 6e they might have better solutions than attribute bonuses and just remove them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I said pages ago, I don't think the binary depiction of grognards, who oppose all the changes, versus new players, who embrace all the changes is accurate or even remotely helpful way to contextualise the situation. We are talking about massively varied group of people with varying experiences and preferences and also very different sort of changes. I for example I think it would be insane to assume that one's opinion on alignment would have some direct correlation on their desire to have somewhat simulationist mechanics. These are very different sort of things.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, considering monster alignments went from completely deleted to largely restored over the course of one year, it seems Wizards concluded alignment was part of the winning formula!

But the alignments of humanoid lineages are more flexible. Even if alignment returned, WotC maintains the clear trend of deemphasizing alignment.

Anyway, don't underestimate the cumulative psychological effect of multiple small changes, nor people's guesses about what those changes may signal for the future of the game. Not to mention other larger issues folks have noted, like the shifts on canon policy, changes to or reduction of lore, etc.

The old formula relied on familiarity for old fans while establishing norms for new fans; the new formula is changing that in noticeable ways and is sure to change even more over the next two years. For the new paradigm to succeed with existing 5E fans, they have to see it as an overall improvement. If enough don't, we're going to see splits in the 5E community.

At the outset, 5e made a fair number of changes to lore - possibly more than 4e (cosmology aside) - but these went by mostly unnoticed in the immediate excitement of its release and those changes have continued.

As I said pages ago, I don't think the binary depiction of grognards, who oppose all the changes, versus new players, who embrace all the changes is accurate or even remotely helpful way to contextualise the situation. We are talking about massively varied group of people with varying experiences and preferences and also very different sort of changes. I for example I think it would be insane to assume that one's opinion on alignment would have some direct correlation on their desire to have somewhat simulationist mechanics. These are very different sort of things.

This is also one reason why I dislike the rhetoric of WotC caving into social media pressure. It turns the complexity of the fanbase and these changes into a finger-pointing, conspiracy-laden blame-game.

What bears more fruit in discussion isn't "blame grognards" or "blame Twitter," but, rather, the simple feedback of whether one likes these changes or not and why. We don't need to blame anyone to give our honest feedback.

While there are some changes that I like, there are some that I am lukewarm, undecided, or even disappointed about. However, I don't think it's healthy to get upset about the changes that WotC are making. Sometimes it's healthier to say, "(maybe) this isn't for me" and then move on. I will admit that learning how and when to disengage can be a challenging skill to learn. But also it's not as if our hobby is short on good quality D&D-like or even D&D 5e-based games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But the alignments of humanoid lineages are more flexible. Even if alignment returned, WotC maintains the clear trend of deemphasizing alignment.


At the outset, 5e made a fair number of changes to lore - possibly more than 4e (cosmology aside) - but these went by mostly unnoticed in the immediate excitement of its release and those changes have continued.


This is also one reason why I dislike the rhetoric of WotC caving into social media pressure. It turns the complexity of the fanbase and these changes into a finger-pointing, conspiracy-laden blame-game.

What bears more fruit in discussion isn't "blame grognards" or "blame Twitter," but, rather, the simple feedback of whether one likes these changes or not and why. We don't need to blame anyone to give our honest feedback.

While there are some changes that I like, there are some that I am lukewarm, undecided, or even disappointed about. However, I don't think it's healthy to get upset about the changes that WotC are making. Sometimes it's healthier to say, "(maybe) this isn't for me" and then move on. I will admit that learning how and when to disengage can be a challenging skill to learn. But also it's not as if our hobby is short on good quality D&D-like or even D&D 5e-based games.

Yeah, I think you may be right about that. It is healthier psychologically just to disengage and move on at this point. It is what it is, and I guess it doesn't really matter why they initiated these changes at the end of the day. As a fan of Level Up, I already have a version of 5e that works for me.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

But the alignments of humanoid lineages are more flexible. Even if alignment returned, WotC maintains the clear trend of deemphasizing alignment.


At the outset, 5e made a fair number of changes to lore - possibly more than 4e (cosmology aside) - but these went by mostly unnoticed in the immediate excitement of its release and those changes have continued.


This is also one reason why I dislike the rhetoric of WotC caving into social media pressure. It turns the complexity of the fanbase and these changes into a finger-pointing, conspiracy-laden blame-game.

What bears more fruit in discussion isn't "blame grognards" or "blame Twitter," but, rather, the simple feedback of whether one likes these changes or not and why. We don't need to blame anyone to give our honest feedback.

While there are some changes that I like, there are some that I am lukewarm, undecided, or even disappointed about. However, I don't think it's healthy to get upset about the changes that WotC are making. Sometimes it's healthier to say, "(maybe) this isn't for me" and then move on. I will admit that learning how and when to disengage can be a challenging skill to learn. But also it's not as if our hobby is short on good quality D&D-like or even D&D 5e-based games.

I think you are spot on with the way forward.

I liked alignment for a number of reasons—had a blast with holy avengers and evil candles for evil casters etc. and not everyone did.

that said for the sake of the community, it is better to acknowledge there are different tastes. But it cuts both ways—-if I don’t wax furiously about some weird motives of a company (that there is no way for me to really know) it would also be nice to not be called a racist for preferences for some old rules and traditions.

I remember going to Gen con many years ago and just preferring 1e to 2e and talking with people about their preferences and then just sitting down and playing.

then again we did not have the internet as it is now—-a sometimes caustic Rorschach.

it is healthy to say “not for me.” I like 5e but not the apparent direction things are heading. I will keep playing it and occasionally sit down and play with people who have some different preferences.

I won’t be buying many more books I suspect…

I lived through it before. When 2e hit, we took a stand and stayed with what we liked better. I skipped it. But then engaged with 3e (but not 3.5).

all good. Still into D&D

 

[Malmuria]

Well, considering monster alignments went from completely deleted to largely restored over the course of one year, it seems Wizards concluded alignment was part of the winning formula!

Anyway, don't underestimate the cumulative psychological effect of multiple small changes, nor people's guesses about what those changes may signal for the future of the game. Not to mention other larger issues folks have noted, like the shifts on canon policy, changes to or reduction of lore, etc.

The old formula relied on familiarity for old fans while establishing norms for new fans; the new formula is changing that in noticeable ways and is sure to change even more over the next two years. For the new paradigm to succeed with existing 5E fans, they have to see it as an overall improvement. If enough don't, we're going to see splits in the 5E community.

I don't think a split among fans is an issue as long as everything is backward compatible. It will be like 1e/2e, where you could use adventures/settings/supplements from 2e with your 1e rulebooks and it basically worked. Similarly, if the adventures they are putting out in 2026 are basically compatible with the 2014 rules, then people can choose which version of the rules they like and run the adventure with those.

Further, you have things like level up or hardcore mode or the mcdm monster book, where third parties can come in and offer their own compatible version of the same game. Again, the idea is that you will be able to buy a 2026 adventure and run it with level up and it will basically work.

It's similar to other games, Call of Cthulhu for example, where the editions are broadly compatible with each other. If you have 6th edition, you don't need to buy the 7th edition rulebook in order to keep playing. Because everything is compatible, you don't split the fan base.

 

[Mordhau]

Fans don't want compatability; they want validation. That's part of what makes fandoms toxic by nature.

 

[Remathilis]

Fans don't want compatability; they want validation. That's part of what makes fandoms toxic by nature.

I agree.

Some fans want to play off-kilter combinations like dwarf wizard without feeling they are underpowered. It not enough for the combination to be viable, they want the game to validate their choice by giving them access to the same ability score modifiers they would get if they picked a "wizardly" race like gnome or high elf. They want whatever combo they dream of to be as valid.

Some fans want the game to only validate the archetypes that have existed for 40 years by them optimal abilities while dissuading non-traditional options through non-optimization. A half-orc barbarian is validated by giving them optimal ability score adjustments, bonuses to survivability, and a classically barbarian bonus skill, while simultaneously enforcing that a half-orc wizard will get much less benefit from these features, which will cause players to stick to powerful familiar combinations at the expense of off-kilter ones.

Both sides want the rules to validate them. One side wants the rules to provide them with the tools to make their centaur storm sorcerer as powerful as any other sorcerer, while the other wants the rules to validate only the archetypes invented decades ago that centaurs make decent warriors and maybe druids, but not much else.