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

 

[Hussar]

If you used the 1st edition aging rules you could get it.

AIR, con only fell. Age didn't give a bonus to Con. But, I'll admit, that's a long time ago.

And, sure, halflings were encouraged to play rogues. I mean, again, AIR, hallfing rogue was pretty much the only class you could play because the racial level limits were so brutal. But, again, halflings couldn't be any more dextrous than any other race. So, it was one of those really weird contradictions that you see in earlier D&D.

I am really not talking about some ancient manuscripts, I was talking about 5e. And not just about ASIs, but about associated and disassociated mechanics in general.

But, as far as 5e goes, AGAIN, it's been shown pretty clearly that size doesn't actually matter for a Strength bonus. IOW, this whole thing only exists in people's minds. It was never part of the game. And, again, from a 5e perspective, it makes zero sense that a dwarf is a better swimmer than an elf. A better climber than a human.

Heck, the best long jumpers in core would be dwarves.

Simulation has never been even a remote consideration in D&D. It's such a weird hill to die on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Simulation has never been even a remote consideration in D&D. It's such a weird hill to die on.

This is very true, but what's weird to me was, even in the very early '90s, when I first got on the internet and started discussing RPGs, people were absolutely queuing up to die on the hill of "D&D is a simulation". It's actually become a huge amount less common over the years.

 

[Mordhau]

And, sure, halflings were encouraged to play rogues. I mean, again, AIR, hallfing rogue was pretty much the only class you could play because the racial level limits were so brutal. But, again, halflings couldn't be any more dextrous than any other race. So, it was one of those really weird contradictions that you see in earlier D&D.

I don't really see the contradiction. Halflings didn't need to be particularly dextrous because they were already encouraged to play rogues. They became dextrous once level limits were removed so as to continue to encourage them to play rogues.

Dexterity bonuses for halflings were just a means to an end.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Man, I guess OD&D and the entire "basic" D&D line would gut you as they never had ASIs in the first place.

The game may not have started with ASIs, but they have been there since the first release of the 1st ed AD&D Player's Handbook in 1978. That's a long time, comprising nearly all of the game's history. Throwing out the fact that it wasn't technically part of the original rules to win debate points in light of that fact strikes me as an argument of questionable faith.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, but, therein lies the rub. As was mentioned, these associations never existed. Here's the 1e ability table:

View attachment 150952
Note, other than elven Dex or dwarven Con, nothing could be better than a human. Note that Halflings got a max of 19 Con but didn't actually get a bonus to the stat.

But, since we're focused on Strength here, look at that. Yup, a halfling had 1 less strength than a dwarf. But, note, unless you were fighter, the difference between 17 and 18 was pretty much nothing. And a gnome was just as strong as anything else, including the half-orc.

My point is, you're talking about "disassociation tolerance" for something that never existed in the game. It just wasn't there.

I do have to ask: if it was never there, why are people making these arguments? Are we all that ignorant, or is it a bad faith thing? How does this keep happening if what you say is true?

 

[Cadence]

See, but, therein lies the rub. As was mentioned, these associations never existed. Here's the 1e ability table:

View attachment 150952
Note, other than elven Dex or dwarven Con, nothing could be better than a human. Note that Halflings got a max of 19 Con but didn't actually get a bonus to the stat.

But, since we're focused on Strength here, look at that. Yup, a halfling had 1 less strength than a dwarf. But, note, unless you were fighter, the difference between 17 and 18 was pretty much nothing. And a gnome was just as strong as anything else, including the half-orc.

My point is, you're talking about "disassociation tolerance" for something that never existed in the game. It just wasn't there.

The percentiles (even if only for fighters) seem pretty important to me to determining which race could be strongest. And it doesn't feel bad to me to look at the people who focus on an attribute (fighters in this case) to see who has the highest upper limit.

So, Male Halfling is a max of +1/+1. Gnome is +1/+2. Elf is +2/+3. Half-elf is +2/+4. Dwarf or Half-Orc is +2/+5. And Human is +3/+6. I like that the damage mod was not identical to the too-hit mod.

And there is the ASI table:

That gnomes are not as physically weak as halflings could be due to their relationship to "their cousins, the dwarves" (who tie for the second strongest race with half-orcs).

It looks like Humans have a higher maximum, but are less likely to be in the 18s than the Half-Orc. Perhaps they are just much more variable (dogs as opposed to cats).

 

[Mordhau]

One thing that keeps coming through is that, to the extent there's anything that seems like a sim goal at all, it needs to be seen by taking all the aspects of race design into consideration, and not just features in isolation.

One thing that's very clear is that it was a design goal for a long time that no one should be stronger than humans. (This was a general part of the safeguarding of the idea of a basically humanocentric game where demi-humans were encouraged to be exceptions*.) This was true for so long that it was noted when Half-orcs came out in 3e with a Strength bonus, and the +2 Strength bonus was considered so powerful that they were given two penalties to compensate for it.

*- of course this didn't always work in practice because level limits were truly stupid

 

[UngeheuerLich]

strongest Goliath must be stronger then strongest halfling, i think.
in general, i not like how important stats become.
I played in 2e fighter with 15 str, in 3e fighter with 13 str and 15 int.
but if i want to hit in 5e - my fighter must be strong...
not skilled fighter but strong fighter.

I don't agree with that assessment.
A 14 main stat is in no way problematic in 5e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

View attachment 150966

Soo... traditon has women that can't be as strong as men. Although the average is nearly the same.
But noone is pushing for giving women penalties (for good reason) , although women IRL do have less muscle mass than men on average (Biological fact).

 

[Mordhau]

Soo... traditon has women that can't be as strong as men. Although the average is nearly the same.
But noone is pushing for giving women penalties (for good reason) , although women IRL do have less muscle mass than men on average (Biological fact).

Women are not fictional beings.