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.

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



 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

As has been noted above, because the inspirational literature didn't have halflings be 3-4x stronger per pound than humans.

To me, the easiest fix is to reorient the fiction. Show a picture of a halfling beating a goliath at arm wrestling on one of the pages and it's all good.
Next PHB cover,
a halfling battle rager,
an orc wizard,
a Tiefling Druid and
a dwarf swashbuckler!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think it's a relevant angle with some races where D&D was ending up in a gross place, but I think it's only a key issue when negative stuff is asserted (like mental stat penalties and/or universal negative personality traits), but yeah I don't think it's a broad issue. I think people talked about it because the worst stuff 5E was doing with races involved it.
I think we are agreement in here that issue is some specific combinations of mechanical features, especially along with questionable fiction, not the concept of fantasy species having differing capabilities in itself. (y)

But the actual usage of the stat is absolutely not consistent with the brief blurbs 5E offers, nor with the more complex explanations previous editions offered. And pretending previous editions don't matter is incompatible with stuff like claiming 1E was attempting verisimilitude. And indeed your entire issue is reliant on it having been done differently in the past.
I'd like to point out that I did not bring up 1e, I merely briefly commented an example you brought up. And my argument has really nothing to do with the past, except insomuch that at the beginning of 5e they did things more in the way I prefer than they're doing now. As for ability descriptions not being consistent with mechanics, I feel they're consistentish, but of course there is a lot of simplification and abstraction in a game like this.

"Only"? No, I didn't say that, did I?

But balance is why you can change races like this but not classes. It's not very complicated.
But of course the changes to races affect balance too. Like how in previously you couldn't combine the dwarven armour proficiency (useful to casters) with optimised casting stat, but now you can. Furthermore, I really see no significant difference between swapping racial features and swapping class features. In either case what the character ends up with is changed.

It doesn't actually follow in a fantasy setting that a Halfling should be weaker than a human. They already have "chimp strength". They should have less leverage and reach. But leverage and reach are not well-represented by ASIs - they're better represented by specific size-related rules.
Yes, in fantasy you can justify anything. But if you use that that flexibility of fantasy to justify why everything has identical capabilities in everything despite drastically different sizes and physiologies then that to me is an utter waste.

And yeah, I agree that the size should affect more things and there should be more rules keyed to it.
 
Last edited:



billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
Yes, they are opposites. If something is abstract, it's not actually simulating anything. In order to simulate something you actually NEED to have something simulated. Combat is 100% abstract. So, basically, you're simulating an abstract concept - combat, using an abstract measure - Strength (along with things like level and other things as well) and then claiming that it needs to be simulative?
That's very much wrong. Just because something is abstracted away from fine detail doesn't mean it doesn't simulate something. There are all sorts of levels of simulation from extremely high fidelity (and pretty strong unusability at a game table) to more abstract and usable.
Again, what is a Charisma of 16? What IS it? What is being simulated? How can you tell the difference between a Cha of 14 and a Cha of 16?
It's a measure of personal magnetism and personality. And the difference is most detectable in a review of their use. Over time, the character with more of a gift in that area can be expected to do better, successfully influence more people.
How should I play an Intelligence of 14. After all, if the scores are simulations, then there should be a qualitative difference in how I play a 14 Int and a 12 Int. That's just as big of a difference as our Strength scores, and that seems really, really important, so, why isn't Int a major issue?
Play it however you want. But the increased likelihood of succeeding at knowledge checks or other checks of mental acuity simulate having a higher intelligence than someone with a lower one.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Wow. That's a ways off. They must really be banking on impatient wealthy gamers buying books they already have.
I still think this was a supply chain issue rather than some coordinated effort. All the initial print run ended up in the gift set, and it took a long time to get a second print run for standalone copies out.

I bet after a few drinks, nearly anyone at WotC would admit this was a worst case scenario for print run.
 

HammerMan

Legend
Next PHB cover,
a halfling battle rager,
an orc wizard,
a Tiefling Druid and
a dwarf swashbuckler!
I swear I have played in that game...

okay not really, but dwarf wizard, tiefling druid and halfling paladin was 3/5ths of a party a few years... wait a decade, ago

Edit: just FYI I was the dwarf wizard "stel Warlock of clan bittersteel third son of lady Kinshara Bittersteel herself" and yes I introduced myself that way every...single...time.
 

HammerMan

Legend
I still think this was a supply chain issue rather than some coordinated effort. All the initial print run ended up in the gift set, and it took a long time to get a second print run for standalone copies out.

I bet after a few drinks, nearly anyone at WotC would admit this was a worst case scenario for print run.
I am sure it was NEVER planed to come out at the same time. Now if the diffrence in time was supposed to only be a month or 6 weeks maybe...but I think they always planed to try to get the collectors to rebuy books
 

I think we are agreement in here that issue is some specific combinations of mechanical features, especially along with questionable fiction, not the concept of fantasy species having differing capabilities in itself. (y)
I think 99.9% of people even in the Wilds of Twitter, are. It's just they need to avoid really negative stuff, and sometimes it's worth sacrificing some arguable verisimilitude for simplicity, I'd say.
I feel they're consistentish, but of course there is a lot of simplification and abstraction in a game like this.
I really quite strongly feel like they aren't, and that in fact the six abilities D&D has don't really cover a lot of stuff, but they still want to assign one for mechanical sake, so it gets jammed into one, but YMMV.
But of course the changes to races affect balance too. Like how in previously you couldn't combine the dwarven armour proficiency (useful to casters) with optimised casting stat, but now you can. Furthermore, I really see no significant difference between sapping racial features and swapping class features. In either case what the character ends up with is changed.
This is a literally irrational/illogical argument. "A change" isn't the issue. Balance is. Balance is always, always, always, always, always a measure of degree (that's literally what it means), not an absolutist "Was there a change yes/no". The minor changes you can make with free ASIs only improve balance and predictability from the design side, as I noted. They're actually a balance positive (from the design side, again). You can't "swap racial features", you still have to pick a package of abilities. Are some better than others? Yes, but that was already the case. What's different now is people have far more flexibility as to which package they choose, because they don't need to also align the ASIs.

As for Dwarves specifically, I think they're going to get nerfed with DND2024. Right now, they're in a sort of beta/limbo state, where they can adopt the unfinished/unbalanced Tasha's rules and that's kind of advantageous to them, but if you saw the changes to races with the new monster book, many were pulling races up, power-wise (at least arguably), quite a few were "neutral-ish" (but basically positive) and a handful were nerfs to outliers. Mountain Dwarf is one such outlier and when we see the 2024 PHB, will likely get the same treatment (maybe we'll see it even earlier).

You can't mix-and-match racial features either, which is what you were suggesting with classes. Anyway, again balance is not binary. It's a matter of degree - and being able to change classes significantly would have vastly more impact that this does, and that's only going to become more obvious with time as the PHB races etc. get pulled into line.
Yes, in fantasy you can justify anything. But if you use that that flexibility of fantasy to justify why everything has identical capabilities in everything despite drastically different sizes and physiologies than that to me is an utter waste.

And yeah, I agree that the size should affect more things and there should be more rules keyed to it.
Re: justify, sure, but that's just aesthetics. That's just taste. It's not a rational argument that something needs to be a certain way. It's not even an argument for verisimilitude, because there's no consistency that Halflings are weak, in fact, through five+ editions of D&D, Halflings have always been shockingly strong for their absolutely diminutive size (literally the same size as an average 5 year old). Making it so they're 100% as strong as a human, instead of 95% as strong (literally the pre-Tashas 5E situation thanks to the human +1 across the board - in 1E is was 94.5%) is just not "breaking verisimilitude". That 5% gap closing might aesthetically offend you, but that's not meaningful verisimilitude. Even to call it a fig leaf would be too kind.

At some point, you need to recognise D&D is not a simulation, so the value of verisimilitude must be weighed against other factors. Sure, we could have special rules saying "Halflings can't put their ASI points in STR" or the like, but that sort of thing will just lead directly back to the problems D&D had before, as someone decides that Borcs (who are not orcs) can't put their ASI points into INT and suddenly thinks start looking unfortunate, and it just complicates matters to no useful end. It's such a tiny and arguable "benefit", and it's an utterly needless complication.

Whereas size rules could offer some meaningful verisimilitude. They could also be consistent, and with a number of races, people could opt in or out of them.
 
Last edited:

Next PHB cover,
a halfling battle rager,
an orc wizard,
a Tiefling Druid and
a dwarf swashbuckler!
I've seen stranger parties in 2E through 5E. If you get players who just don't really care about balance, either because they're "over it", or just don't get it/care about it, you get parties like that, either entirely or partially.

The difference with the ASI flexibility is that the people who do care about stuff like having a "full power" main stat get to choose as freely as the people who didn't care before.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I am sure it was NEVER planed to come out at the same time. Now if the diffrence in time was supposed to only be a month or 6 weeks maybe...but I think they always planed to try to get the collectors to rebuy books
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
 

HammerMan

Legend
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I don't think malice or stupidity fits here. Anyone with a slight business knowledge (like HS level) and a passing familiarity with gamers will know there is a non 0 amount of people that want the new book so bad they will rebuy 2 other books in the gift set. Also there are people who own only 1 or 0 of those and they will want updated information... it is just good sense they would do this.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
I am sure it was NEVER planed to come out at the same time. Now if the diffrence in time was supposed to only be a month or 6 weeks maybe...but I think they always planed to try to get the collectors to rebuy books
It wasn't. IIRC the boxed set was supposed to come out in November to be a Christmas gift release. I suspect that the individual book would have been available in either late December or January had Wizards been able to release on their preferred schedule.
 

HammerMan

Legend
It wasn't. IIRC the boxed set was supposed to come out in November to be a Christmas gift release. I suspect that the individual book would have been available in either late December or January had Wizards been able to release on their preferred schedule.
yeah a January date (maybe even already by today) would have made sense.
 

Wow. That's a ways off. They must really be banking on impatient wealthy gamers buying books they already have.
My grocery store ran out of milk for week. Meat deliveries are inconsistent. A whole section of WA, OR, ID were cut off from the rest of the world for 4 days due to avalanches and snowfall.
Probably all also a conspiracy by Hasbro to get rich completionists to buy books.
 

So if difference in ability score is not noticeable and doesn't simulate anything, why we have variable ability scores in the first place? I don't get it it, why we have pointless mechanics that do not represent anything and do not do anything noticeable?

Also, you don't need to balance strength with intelligence. You can balance it with dex, other species getting more traits, feats etc.
That is not what I said. But go on...

Of course you can balance an extra +x to strength as explained in the post above. But the way 5e did was the worst of both worlds. Limiting design space by applying +2 Str and +1 Con to strong races leaving nothing for remaining stats. So while smaller people can be intelligent, charismatic, even strong as mountain dwarves, big people can only be strong? So either put more than +3 or 4 total in the mix or take it out. They took it out annd that is fine, adding significant bonuses and balancing it with other thing is fine, but leaving as it was probably not. (I personally don´t care that much actually, but your argument that not giving +2 Str breaks everything needs to be refuted, because it does not and is actually for the better.)
 

I still think this was a supply chain issue rather than some coordinated effort. All the initial print run ended up in the gift set, and it took a long time to get a second print run for standalone copies out.

I bet after a few drinks, nearly anyone at WotC would admit this was a worst case scenario for print run.
I can also imagine, that since the gift set is not available for dndbeyond, probably the implementation is not that easy. Will you update old content? Will you make it optional? Alternate race entries? Do you have to pay for the new versions?
Not that clear to me. May2022 will give some time to think about it and maybe also roll out some playtests for 5.5e, which might put the changes into more context.
 

I've seen stranger parties in 2E through 5E. If you get players who just don't really care about balance, either because they're "over it", or just don't get it/care about it, you get parties like that, either entirely or partially.

The difference with the ASI flexibility is that the people who do care about stuff like having a "full power" main stat get to choose as freely as the people who didn't care before.
Honestly past level 5 race don’t make much a difference in 5ed.
 


ART!

Legend
"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?
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top