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


log in or register to remove this ad


SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
I dont have orcs in my world, with the continent loosely populated by humanoids east to west, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears in the east and gnolls in the west.

So goblinoids are the usual "common" enemies and bulk of evil armies etc. With them as fey, that doesn't quite sit right anymore. (to me).

I will need to decide wether to bring back orcs or not change goblinoid to fey. Interesting dilemma.

HOWEVER, those changes to bugbears (other than fey) are fantastic! I'm keeping those.
 


Well, I'll just bookmark the first page of this thread so that way I know what to unnerf, revert, add on, and restore for my 5E games that I DM. Like restoring Goblin's Fury of the Small original damage based on level, but keying off of PB score for use and on the first turn, Aarakokra keeping the 30 ft walking speed/50 ft flying speed, Magical Resistance being the same as before, etc etc etc. I was a bit neutral towards splitting both parts of Fey Ancestry into two separate racial parts, but I'll admit that I'm digging Trance and that it still says no to Sleep/Magical Sleep. For the Shadar-Kai, one could flavor the proficiencies you gain from Trance to be part of the various memories they collect for the Raven Queen. The Longsword proficiency selection could be that of a famous swordsman from the past and the memory of such a being being "borrowed" by a Shardar-Kai using Trance.

I also make the excuse/argument that you can still use both versions of the Hobgoblins as thus: The original 5E version is more reflective of the Lawful Evil militant version known in DND. The "new" Hobgoblin are more the ones who ditched the military draft basically and are their own thing. Or even the members of the Eberron Dhakarnii Hobgoblins.
 


As for Gobinoids having Fey Ancestry, in mythology they've often been labelled as Fey creatures (so have Kobolds and Dwarves to a certain degree). So it's appropriate they do get that, also it distinguishes them from Orcs since they've often being grouped with them.
In mythology, nearly every nonhuman being is labeled as Fey. Making more and more things fall into this category is itself lazy writing, done primarily to give an easy reason for them not to be evil, and because Fey stuff is the new hotness.
 


Scribe

Hero
One thing not noticed yet:

The negative valence has been removed in the names of many of these abilities.
  • Orcs are no longer "aggressive"
  • Kobolds no longer "grovel cower and beg"
  • Hobgoblins no longer need to be "saving face"
  • even Kenku's duplication is no longer tied to forgery.

Even when the mechanical benefits remain unchanged (perhaps especially when), there is a moralizing aspect to these changes.
Ran them all through a sensitivity trainer, cannot be offensive to any of the Orcs or Kenku out there...
 

These look like smart changes, for the most part.

I like the implication that half-orcs will be replaced by orcs and that the short rest will be eliminated.

I'm not a fan of making goblinoids fey. I understand the rationale behind it, but it's not to my personal taste.

Somewhat annoyed by the PHB spell limitation resulting in water genasi getting acid splash.

I suspect the monk's Martial Arts die will be getting a boost.
 

Kurotowa

Legend
The negative valence has been removed in the names of many of these abilities.

Even when the mechanical benefits remain unchanged (perhaps especially when), there is a moralizing aspect to these changes.
Funny how some people see removing hard coded moral judgments to be moralizing and not de-moralizing. But I suppose we've already established that rules supported racial essentialism is the hill that some people will die on.
 


I have some issues with the current design paradigm, a lot of homogenisation seems to be happening. But fey goblinoids are fine by me. It actually is saying something concrete and potentially interesting about goblinoids. It won't suit every setting, but no fluff ever does.

I'm not a fan of short rest traits being phased out. This just encourages novaing all the uses ASAP and taking a long rest. Also, if you have several of such features (they seem to be changing stuff from classes into this paradigm too) tracking them becomes tiresome.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I like most of these changes. Sad to see Kenku losing their speech restriction, and still praying the Warlock gets to keep its short rest based casting.
 

Scribe

Hero
You know Scribe, it's totally fine if you don't like the changes, but I feel like posting something like this is needlessly inflammatory.
I suppose you are right, I could have stated it better.

What it's more about is the same as many of their other changes. "Say as little definitively as possible."

I absolutely believe an internal goal at Wizards is to be as over the top inoffensive as possible, and I dont believe that to be inflammatory.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
Funny how some people see removing hard coded moral judgments to be moralizing and not de-moralizing. But I suppose we've already established that rules supported racial essentialism is the hill that some people will die on.
Yes, making changes that shape the moral presentation of a character option is moralizing. Whether you like the change or not is up to you.

"Funny how..." is needlessly sarcastic; the post was not talking about racial essentialism, and no one was saying this was a hill to die on -- that's all you, looking to be divisive.
 

Irlo

Adventurer
Yes, making changes that shape the moral presentation of a character option is moralizing. Whether you like the change or not is up to you.

"Funny how..." is needlessly sarcastic; the post was not talking about racial essentialism, and no one was saying this was a hill to die on -- that's all you, looking to be divisive.
Maintaining existing rules that shape the moral presentation of a character option is also moralizing. Writers and publishers make deliberate choices about these things all the time.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
Maintaining existing rules that shape the moral presentation of a character option is also moralizing. Writers and publishers make deliberate choices about these things all the time.
Yes, they do. And since this is a thread about the changes, the earlier post pointed out some of those deliberate choices.
 

Argyle King

Legend
It's interesting to see so many changes.

It reminds me of what late 3E and late 4E products felt like.

I'm curious to see what D&D looks like in 2024.
I'll likely wait until then to pick up newer books, so as to avoid buying multiple versions of the same content which may or may not be compatible.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Interesting

Seems they might be doing away with short rest recharge entirely. Moving away from the typical adventuring day perhaps?
Yup, that started with Tasha Subclasses and has been the norm for the past year and a half. Less moving away from the standard, and more making it flexible...since the new number will match the old assumptions but in a ca.paifn style neutral fashion.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top