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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Women are not fictional beings.

Yes. And that means that this actually would make a stronger case to include a str modifier than a fictional being with a fictional anatomy we know nothing about.
But it is not included because it would be a very bad idea for obvious reasons.

 

[Azzy]

Obviously not well enough, because you're still treating ASIs in isolation rather than consdering how the whole package works.

If you were paying attention you would have seen that I've covered that.

You obviously missed a discussion, then. Minimum requirements for a class' primerquite score(s) is so obviously not the same as ASIs and when you actually look at those minimums and try to interpret them as meaningful to the race with a straight face, you get what I pointed out—everyone has the same max and average, so halflings (min 9+ Dex, 9+ Con) can be as strong as the other races, elves (min 9+ Int) that are no more dextrous than any other race, dwarves (min 9+ Con) that are actually tougher on minimum (but not on average or maximum) than other races aside from halflings. You're also ignoring that AD&D also had racial min/maxes to ability scores, so pointing these racial mins in basic D&D isn't the gotcha that you somehow think it is.

 

[Azzy]

What about race as class? That existed in the same hame line for nearly the same amount of time. I actually like race as class, but it has the same pedigree as lack of ASIs.

What about it?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, pointing to the Alexandrian who was writing at the time to decry changes made by 4e is hardly a good example.

It's not a case of it not doing a good job in one or two specific instances. It's that it doesn't do a good job at all. I mean, even in his own example, a "good blacksmith" is among the smartest a human can possibly be. All good blacksmiths are geniuses, because of how the 3e stat system works. And then he calls that good simulation.

Again, can you explain to me why dwarves are the best swimmers and jumpers in the game?

I think Goliaths have them beat, generally speaking, and certainly tritons with their swim speed win on swimming.

Expertise makes it so that rogues are the best athletes, regardless of race, so a dwarf rogue is top tier athlete.

 

[Cadence]

I think that many people grow up in the game looking at it through a certain lens that is then constantly reinforced by the group they played with in their formative years of gaming, where groups barely read the rules and most certainly almost never actually followed them except in the most passing of ways.

Which means you have this group of players who insist on D&D being simulationist when even a cursory examination of the game proves that it isn't true.

The bigger question that you should be asking is, if D&D is meant to be simulationist in leaning, where's the proof? We've pointed to how, in every edition of the game, sim was barely a consideration and frequently didn't even come close to getting it right. Again, no one seems to be able to explain to me why mountain dwarves are among the best swimmers and long jumpers, two things that dwarves are famous for NOT being able to do. So, where's your evidence that D&D is meant to be simulationist?

A lot of times, I think, what happens is people just assume things about the game, play that way, but, never actually take the time to examine their assumptions and then, when the big old spotlight gets shone on the fact that their assumptions are not actually supported by the text, get very defensive and turtle up, refusing to even acknowledge the issue.

I would agree that the game certainly isn't aiming to be a simulation (see hit points) or for realism (see dragons), as is plainly stated in the first six sentences below. (Were they particularly seeking contrast with wargaming?).

But I would argue that verisimilitude (the appearance of being real or true within itself) is still a thing - see the final sentence in the first quote and the various things fiddly rules everywhere in 1e.

"A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. " - G.G. 1e DMG pg. 9

"In any event, do not allow either the demands of 'realism' or impossible make believe to spoil your milieu." - G.G. 1e DMG pg 88

-----

Random things I stumbled across and put here because I found them interesting:

On the limits on abilities, I found this... interesting(?). "You will find no pretentious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma..." G.G. 1e PhB pg 6

See pages 61 and 82 of the DMG for more on why simulation doesn't fit with hit points and the like.

"[T]here isn't a hint of a spell point system whose record keeping would warm the heart of a monomaniacal statistics lover[.]" - G.G. 1e PhB pg. 6

 

[Cadence]

And you iugnore that throughout almost all of AD&D's life, the sister D&D line existed without ASIs altogether, and that's a mighty long time, too. D&D didn't start with ASI and it never needede them to be a fun game. Requiring ASIs is just a hangup that you and some others share.

Finding that the basic D&D line - that "was designed to be easily read and used by individuals who have never before played a role playing game" and summarized in a handful of 64 page books - doesn't have lots of things in it that "people with a background of gaming experience" might want, doesn't feel like a gotcha to me.

(Quotes from the foreward to Moldvay).

 

[Cadence]

Going back about 20 slides and thinking about the nature of "Strength" as an ability, and letting my mind wander...

So, say we take Strength as "Fitness" or "Strength per pound" which fits with athletics (dealing with the climb wall and swimming questions). It wouldn't fit with carrying capacity or size of weapon that could be used though.

Would a semi-natural thing be to add a size attribute too (chosen by the player not rolled). Where the size adds/subtracts from various things done with Strength and Dex like it has in some past editions (AC and hiding better when small, carrying capacity, damage, and movement rate better for large). Like in the 3/3.5/PF rules:

Table of Creature Size and Scale | d20 Pub

An easy reference chart for D&D Monster Sizes from Fine to Colossal to show Attack and AC Modifier, Special Attacks Modifier, Hide Modifier, Height or L ...

d20.pub

It feels like you'd want to make the size not too rigid - maybe rough height bands adjusted up or down by build, so that a dwarf is "larger than its height" in terms of overall size.

As all of those modifiers are just added to the character sheet before play, would it make it much harder to use in practice?

 

[Mordhau]

I don't understand how the fact that AD&D had ability scores minimums is relevant to the fact that basic D&D had them.

Clearly they serve some kind of logic. Dwarves would get a Con bonus in AD&D but in Basic D&D they have a minimum. So the average would not be the same as no characters with Cons below 9 (not that unusual in Basic) would be Dwarves.

But we need to consider how the whole package works. First halflings in basic are basically fighters, which is an outlier in the history of the game. AD&D pushed them into rogues and every edition since has basically followed suit.

If you roll 18 Str do you go human (Fighter) or Halfling? Well unless you also have a Dex of 13 you're encouraged to go human Fighter because the XP bonus is better. You are also limited to armour your size and smaller weapons (explicitly) which is a real impediment in Basic. In addition you get a +1 bonus to missile weapons which encourages a play style where you go more for ranged attacks.

All of this means that in my experience, once again, due to the way the system works as a whole, the strongest characters in B/X are almost always going to be human fighters.

Again. What we need to consider here is not the theoretical scale in isolation but how the pieces work together to create a result.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would agree that the game certainly isn't aiming to be a simulation (see hit points) or for realism (see dragons), as is plainly stated in the first six sentences below. (Were they particularly seeking contrast with wargaming?).

But I would argue that verisimilitude (the appearance of being real or true within itself) is still a thing

Here's hoping that dies soon too, because people keep using it to mean 'like Earth but with wizards' instead of actually allowing for a fantastic world.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would agree that the game certainly isn't aiming to be a simulation (see hit points) or for realism (see dragons), as is plainly stated in the first six sentences below. (Were they particularly seeking contrast with wargaming?).

But I would argue that verisimilitude (the appearance of being real or true within itself) is still a thing - see the final sentence in the first quote and the various things fiddly rules everywhere in 1e.





-----

Random things I stumbled across and put here because I found them interesting:

On the limits on abilities, I found this... interesting(?). "You will find no pretentious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma..." G.G. 1e PhB pg 6

See pages 61 and 82 of the DMG for more on why simulation doesn't fit with hit points and the like.

"[T]here isn't a hint of a spell point system whose record keeping would warm the heart of a monomaniacal statistics lover[.]" - G.G. 1e PhB pg. 6

LOL very friendly toward people with preferences that don’t match his own!