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

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is a matter of taste.

I want to play the magical archetypes − rather than be on receiving end of them.

If I have choose between Conan and Elric, I choose Elric.

Fair enough, but D&D needs to handle both.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes. It's not a PC and doesn't need to operate on PC rules, especially if it slows the game down. Just create a half dozen combat magic abilities, because what it can do outside combat is just GM fiat anyway.

Sigh...

One of my complaints about 4e was that there was a clear divide IN THE FICTION between PCs and NPCs. For example, a PC cleric got a one list of powers, but an NPC "cleric" had completely another. It wasn't just a difference of religion; it was like they were from two totally different realities. A PC wizard could never learn what an NPC "wizard" did, and vice versa. PCs are from Mars, NPCS from Venus.

5e at least had tried to create some feeling of parallelism. I could tell you that an NPC mage represented a 9th level wizard and had spell slots equal to one, even if they didn't match in HP, PB, or other mechanics. And to be fair, I wouldn't have minded some spells listed as attacks (Action: Magic Missile, range 120 ft, creates 3 missiles doing 1d4+1 force damage per hit, uses 1 spell slot). but it seems we're going back to NPCs having spells that wizards cannot learn, sorcerers cannot counterspell, clerics cannot dispel, and DMs cannot determine what "level" the caster is supposed to represent.

Easier? I guess. But a major step back for me in terms of NPC building and world-building.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. It's not a PC and doesn't need to operate on PC rules, especially if it slows the game down. Just create a half dozen combat magic abilities, because what it can do outside combat is just GM fiat anyway.

You and I will not see eye to eye on this. To me, a living, sensical fantasy world is just as important as a fun game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Do you take yourself to be representative of the "older fan base"? Because I see a lot of people in this discussion who are also part of the older fan base who have no problem with these changes

I've been playing since 1981. While I don't agree with everything 5e does (who does, really?), I have no problems with this. The game certainly isn't alienating to me. Nor to any of the other older gamers I play with. In fact, many of my current gaming group are also military vets (saaaayyyy wwwwhhhaaaaatttt!), so that's a double "make assumptions about us" whammy lol. But we're all pretty progressive.

I really suspect that older gamers who make comments like that haven't really hung out with other groups of older gamers or in other OSR-type forums. We tend to go to our echo chambers.

Look at folks like Luke Gygax, or Peter Atkinson (running GaryCon and GenCon respectively). They're both old school gamers. They like older editions, but they also have no issues with 5e. Everyone deserves to feel like the game appeals to them, and if that means making changes to find what this new generation of gamers likes, then so be it. The game has always been that way. I recall all the hooha over when 2e came out, and people saying that ruined the game. We fans of TSR era D&D had our moment, and no one took away our books. There are still new products out there there are OSR centric. Who cares if WotC isn't our primary source of D&D material? It's bringing in new gamers and increasing the popularity and acceptance of the game, and those folks deserve to have an edition they like too.

I mentioned this the other day. Most of Critical Role are in their 40s. They aren't a bunch of young kids changing the game. And a person doesn't suddenly become a crotchety old grognard after 40.

 

[Malmuria]

but it seems we're going back to NPCs having spells that wizards cannot learn, sorcerers cannot counterspell, clerics cannot dispel, and DMs cannot determine what "level" the caster is supposed to represent.

Easier? I guess. But a major step back for me in terms of NPC building and world-building.

I actually love this from a world building perspective. It introduces a sense of mystery to magic, where there is “known” magic and “undiscovered” magic. You can take this in a number of different directions. 10th level spells? Types of magic that have been forgotten by time? Spells that you can research, but perhaps at the cost of your psychological well being (as in CoC)? “Magic” that is in fact alien technology? As with cosmology, there is something to be gained by not overdefining everything

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sigh...

One of my complaints about 4e was that there was a clear divide IN THE FICTION between PCs and NPCs. For example, a PC cleric got a one list of powers, but an NPC "cleric" had completely another. It wasn't just a difference of religion; it was like they were from two totally different realities. A PC wizard could never learn what an NPC "wizard" did, and vice versa. PCs are from Mars, NPCS from Venus.

5e at least had tried to create some feeling of parallelism. I could tell you that an NPC mage represented a 9th level wizard and had spell slots equal to one, even if they didn't match in HP, PB, or other mechanics. And to be fair, I wouldn't have minded some spells listed as attacks (Action: Magic Missile, range 120 ft, creates 3 missiles doing 1d4+1 force damage per hit, uses 1 spell slot). but it seems we're going back to NPCs having spells that wizards cannot learn, sorcerers cannot counterspell, clerics cannot dispel, and DMs cannot determine what "level" the caster is supposed to represent.

Easier? I guess. But a major step back for me in terms of NPC building and world-building.

I understand streamlining NPC statblocks somewhat for ease of use, but I think they should still try to at least seem to be similar creatures than the PCs to the players. At the point where spells cast by a PC wizard can be counterspelled but those cast by a NPC wizard cannot we have definitely veered too far.

 

[Reynard]

You and I will not see eye to eye on this. To me, a living, sensical fantasy world is just as important as a fun game.

What does that have to do with "sensical"? The mechanics are not physical laws, they are mechanisms for play. You can still have the wizard spellbook in the treasure pile afterward.

 

[ART!]

If they wanted to alienate their older fan base, they made a critical success.

Do you take yourself to be representative of the "older fan base"? Because I see a lot of people in this discussion who are also part of the older fan base who have no problem with these changes

[raises hand]

I've been playing D&D since the late '70s, and I've played every edition except maybe the original little booklets edition. I figured out a long time ago, though, that my enjoyment had little to do with the rules. I enjoy the social aspects, figuring out the rules, creating insane stories with others, laughing uncontrollably at the kinds of things that can only happen at the gaming table, worldbuilding, problem-solving, fighting evil, etc. Once we've gotten over the hurdle of learning the basics of a new edition, none of that has changed.

We've been playing 5E weekly for 4+ years, and I look forward to seeing how these latest changes play once they're available on D&D Beyond, and what the game looks like come 2024. If for some reason enough people in our group aren't cool with it, well go on using 5E as is, I imagine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What does that have to do with "sensical"? The mechanics are not physical laws, they are mechanisms for play. You can still have the wizard spellbook in the treasure pile afterward.

Why doesn't the NPC wizards know the spells in their spellbook?

 

[Reynard]

I understand streamlining NPC statblocks somewhat for ease of use, but I think they should still try to at least seem to be similar creatures than the PCs to the players. At the point where spells cast by a PC wizard can be counterspelled but those cast by a NPC wizard cannot we have definitely veered too far.

Counterspelling is a specific example of a play mechanic. It's solved with a single sentence: The Archmage's magical attacks can be counterspelled as if they were nth level spells. Taadaa. Everyone wins.