• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
So yea, what I want is a game where orks are nuanced complex people instead of caricature evil mooks, but where they still can be physiologically different from humans and where that difference will be represented mechanically, including via ability scores.
There is a difference between "this is what these creatures are like in the world" and "this is what players are allowed to play" though. At least, I think that is the intent behind changes like this. WotC isn't saying Halflings have the same range of physical capabilities as Orcs, they are saying that players have the same range of potential fun regardless of whether they want their character to be cat-man or a horse-man or a half-man. I don't really like that because it just means every race is a Star Trek human with a funny forehead, but I get why they have chosen this route.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
But, the problem is, how granular is the system? The difference between an 20 and a 10 stat in 5e isn't actually all that large. Going from 0 - +5 isn't enough of a range to build in stat differences based on race. The argument that you can have a really strong halfling vs a weak orc isn't a bad one. It's perfectly plausible. And, let's not forget, that the archetypes of given races will likely result, at the table, in enough difference to make it work.

At my particular table, for example, I have 5 PC's. The war forged cleric is the strongest. The owl folk artificer is about the weakest and the tiefling bard splits the difference. Well, that's pretty plausible isn't it?

Yeah, people go on and on about the 20 strength halfling, but, outside of the hypothetical, how often do you actually see this at your table? How often have you had a small character at your table with a 20 strength? Is it an outlier or is it typical? IME, it's very much the outlier. If I want to play a 20 strength character, I'm going to pick a race where that fits because, "big strong guy" is the general archetype that people will follow.

I really wonder how much of this issue is just people theory crafting about what players "could" do vs what players actually do.

I mean, hell, considering practically no one ever plays halflings anyway, who cares? (I kid, I kid. Please put that stick down. :D :p )
 


Reynard

Legend
Supporter
But, the problem is, how granular is the system? The difference between an 20 and a 10 stat in 5e isn't actually all that large. Going from 0 - +5 isn't enough of a range to build in stat differences based on race.
I don't actually think that the people that take exception to it care much about the bonus, so much as the idea that the two can haul around the same amount of crap or otherwise perform feats of muscle power to be too much for their Suspenders of Disbelief to bear. Most everything in D&D is so abstract it seems extra weird when these legacy simulation conundrums pop up.
 



Great character, but, the great character has pretty much nothing to do with the fact that it's a warlock.
Couldn't you say the same about most characters, though?

Looking back through D&D, I'd say about 60-70% of "great characters" didn't have a lot to do with their class, and some of the absolute worst "Ugh this guy" characters were basically "I AM CLERICMAN MY LIFE IS CLERIC MY THOUGHTS ARE CLERIC" or the like (let's not even start on some Paladins). Yeah there's room in-between but I'm skeptical that this is really a problem - and you could always just y'know, talk to the player if you're concerned re: toe-stepping.
So yea, what I want is a game where orks are nuanced complex people instead of caricature evil mooks, but where they still can be physiologically different from humans and where that difference will be represented mechanically, including via ability scores.
I think you're maybe not seeing the whole picture - you're missing the forest for the trees.

It's not that you're wrong to think that's okay, or ask questions about why other games aren't having the same pushback, but you're not really looking at the reasons behind why D&D, specifically, has issues here. Lemme list some for you, maybe it'll help.

1) D&D isn't science fiction - I know that sounds facile, but it matters. D&D isn't Star Wars. There aren't these well-defined, consistent species we've seen on-screen, who have fairly obvious characteristics. These are something much more malleable.

2) D&D hasn't been consistent on making characters conform to "science-y" standards. I.e., over the editions, it's wildly varied as to what stats you can have on what race, and whether there's a limit or just a penalty. Furthermore, in no edition, has anything approach what you're asking for actually been done. That includes 1E. Halflings in 1E are limited to 17 STR. That's obviously already far outside the bounds of what is plausible if we're talking something attempting realism.

3) D&D has a long history of problematic stuff with races that other games do not (or at least are not widely known to have). This means it is, rightly I think, subject to more scrutiny on this than some other games.

4) D&D hasn't been consistent on what stats represent, either, but if we're down to brass tacks, what gets particularly questionable is the mental stats, as they particularly tie in to the insulting/problematic depictions D&D (specifically) has engaged in.

5) As you correctly point out, D&D leans extremely heavily on stats to make characters functional, so this issue is particularly discussed in D&D as opposed to other games. In a lot of games you can simply work around this kind of thing.

As for "represented mechanically", I don't think any cases has been made that ASIs are the "right tool for the job". If Halflings, say, had a a reduced weight limit, or a penalty to STR checks or something, I don't think that would be a problem, nor would people be mad about it. I'd go as far as to say the vast majority of things people point to ASIs for would actually be better off as racial features or the like. It's not like physiology isn't featured in the new approach - c.f. the Elven "Trance" feature for something that physiological and mechanical.

As an aside, essentially the new approach is "self-enforcement", which honestly, I expect to work. Do you think we're going to see bunches of "LOL STR20 HALFLING LOLORAMA!!!!" characters? I don't. On the contrary, I think as things open up a bit, choice-wise, we'll see people voluntarily self-limiting on this kind of this. I think we'll actually see few high-STR Halflings or the like.

All in all, ASIs used the way D&D uses them, just don't do well for what you're asking for, which is sci-fi-esque "species". They're not extreme enough, and stats are both too vague, and too important to a functional character for them to be a good mechanism. Again, racial features are where most of this should be (also possibly a return of "Small" being a trade-off as per 3E).
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
But I feel that hijacking the discussion about representation and social issues to demand a specific mechanic is frankly bizarre, and personally to me it even seems rather disingenuous.
I was not using human representation though. I'm bringing up a fact about data: actually real populations very rarely actually fit any kind of "there's an average and it should be represented." Average traits--even when you define "average" to be something incredibly broad like "the middle 50% of the population"--are actually pretty rare to occur all together. This has nothing to do with representing real-world ethnic groups correctly or incorrectly, and everything to do with how "average" is a really, really useless concept for talking about populations, even when you assume those populations really do have very strong and consistent characteristics.

The sample for Anthropometery of Flying Personnel was slightly over 4000 airmen from various USAF bases around the time the Korean War started. Probably small compared to the number of living members of a given race in any random person's game, but a useful sample nonetheless. The sample for the 2011 and 2016 Australian censuses was the total population of the country in each collection period (~22 million and ~23.4 million, respectively)--populations I would expect to be pretty large for the typical pseudomedieval semi-European Tolkienesque low-fantasy setting (seeing as how the largest cities in the world before 1500 AD were in the 1-2 million range, and the total population of Europe ranged between ~50 and ~90 million between 1000 and 1500 AD, this would be anywhere between half and a quarter of all living persons, so quite a large sample). When such large, robust, non-biased samples repeatedly produce the clear result that truly average people don't exist, it becomes difficult to argue that there should be such clear, hard patterns like "all dragonborn have +2 STR because that's what dragonborn just are."

Instead, it makes more sense to do something like, "Typically, dragonborn do well in tests of strength, endurance, or personal magnetism. As a result, having bonuses to Strength, Constitution, and/or Charisma may be expected by dragonborn as a group, or by outsiders who know only stereotypes. If your character does not match these expectations, how has that affected them? Does your character feel inferior due to not living up to the expectations of others, or are they defiant and proud of their differences? Have they struggled with things that other members of their race would find easy, or do they see themselves as providing complementary strengths to their fellows? Taking the time to think about these things can lead to many fun or surprising elements in playing a character, even if yours is perfectly ordinary by the expectations of others like them."

Again: my argument has diddly-squat to do with "some groups of IRL humans have been represented really really really badly, and that's something to avoid." My entirely separate argument is, "Real populations of real beings--such as humans, but it's true of basically all living things--almost never actually contain any truly average members, everyone is an outlier in one way or another. Given this is a demonstrable, statistical fact, is it still pursuing verisimilitude or simulation to try to make fictional populations exhibit such a non-factual, unrealistic property? If it is, that doesn't really sound like 'resembling what is true' or 'accurately modeling things that could be real, but aren't,' so what do you actually mean by 'verisilimilitude' and/or 'simulation'? I it isn't, then...those don't seem to be reasons to oppose this particular aspect of inclusivity."

Plus? If it upsets you so much, start handing out skill proficiencies. Those are clearly still 100% okay as the Elf Keen Senses trait demonstrates (and, in general, racial skill proficiencies for a variety of races). Give all Dragonborn and Orcs Athletics proficiency if you think it's unrealistic that there should be no differences in physical strength between them and other races--they get for free what other races have to work very hard for (and, if you really want to make it go all out, let the feature be of the form "You have Proficiency in X; if you would later gain Proficiency in X from some other source, you instead have Expertise in X.") That seems to me both a perfectly cromulent way to reinforce physiological differences and embrace inclusivity: ultimately, everyone gets to the same peak condition with effort, but some have natural talent to give them a leg up, and others have to invest resources and time into it.
 

I was not using human representation though. I'm bringing up a fact about data: actually real populations very rarely actually fit any kind of "there's an average and it should be represented." Average traits--even when you define "average" to be something incredibly broad like "the middle 50% of the population"--are actually pretty rare to occur all together. This has nothing to do with representing real-world ethnic groups correctly or incorrectly, and everything to do with how "average" is a really, really useless concept for talking about populations, even when you assume those populations really do have very strong and consistent characteristics.

The sample for Anthropometery of Flying Personnel was slightly over 4000 airmen from various USAF bases around the time the Korean War started. Probably small compared to the number of living members of a given race in any random person's game, but a useful sample nonetheless. The sample for the 2011 and 2016 Australian censuses was the total population of the country in each collection period (~22 million and ~23.4 million, respectively)--populations I would expect to be pretty large for the typical pseudomedieval semi-European Tolkienesque low-fantasy setting (seeing as how the largest cities in the world before 1500 AD were in the 1-2 million range, and the total population of Europe ranged between ~50 and ~90 million between 1000 and 1500 AD, this would be anywhere between half and a quarter of all living persons, so quite a large sample). When such large, robust, non-biased samples repeatedly produce the clear result that truly average people don't exist, it becomes difficult to argue that there should be such clear, hard patterns like "all dragonborn have +2 STR because that's what dragonborn just are."

Instead, it makes more sense to do something like, "Typically, dragonborn do well in tests of strength, endurance, or personal magnetism. As a result, having bonuses to Strength, Constitution, and/or Charisma may be expected by dragonborn as a group, or by outsiders who know only stereotypes. If your character does not match these expectations, how has that affected them? Does your character feel inferior due to not living up to the expectations of others, or are they defiant and proud of their differences? Have they struggled with things that other members of their race would find easy, or do they see themselves as providing complementary strengths to their fellows? Taking the time to think about these things can lead to many fun or surprising elements in playing a character, even if yours is perfectly ordinary by the expectations of others like them."

Again: my argument has diddly-squat to do with "some groups of IRL humans have been represented really really really badly, and that's something to avoid." My entirely separate argument is, "Real populations of real beings--such as humans, but it's true of basically all living things--almost never actually contain any truly average members, everyone is an outlier in one way or another. Given this is a demonstrable, statistical fact, is it still pursuing verisimilitude or simulation to try to make fictional populations exhibit such a non-factual, unrealistic property? If it is, that doesn't really sound like 'resembling what is true' or 'accurately modeling things that could be real, but aren't,' so what do you actually mean by 'verisilimilitude' and/or 'simulation'? I it isn't, then...those don't seem to be reasons to oppose this particular aspect of inclusivity."

Plus? If it upsets you so much, start handing out skill proficiencies. Those are clearly still 100% okay as the Elf Keen Senses trait demonstrates (and, in general, racial skill proficiencies for a variety of races). Give all Dragonborn and Orcs Athletics proficiency if you think it's unrealistic that there should be no differences in physical strength between them and other races--they get for free what other races have to work very hard for (and, if you really want to make it go all out, let the feature be of the form "You have Proficiency in X; if you would later gain Proficiency in X from some other source, you instead have Expertise in X.") That seems to me both a perfectly cromulent way to reinforce physiological differences and embrace inclusivity: ultimately, everyone gets to the same peak condition with effort, but some have natural talent to give them a leg up, and others have to invest resources and time into it.
I really have no idea what you're on about. There indeed is individual variation and no one is forced to be 'average'. That's what the point buy/roll represents. What ASI simulates is that certain species has a tendency to be better in certain area.
 

But, the problem is, how granular is the system? The difference between an 20 and a 10 stat in 5e isn't actually all that large. Going from 0 - +5 isn't enough of a range to build in stat differences based on race.
This is the argument that because the thing cannot be simulated perfectly, it doesn't need to be simulated at all. And to me that is highly unconvincing. It is very common in game design to truncate differences for gameplay reasons whilst still representing them. Like how in Warhammer 40K lore a Space Marine is worth about ten normal soldier. But on the tabletop game they're worth only about four. It would still be pretty absurd to claim that as the difference in power is not perfectly simulated by the rules, you might as well have space marines to be no better than normal soldiers.

The argument that you can have a really strong halfling vs a weak orc isn't a bad one. It's perfectly plausible.
It is plausible. And ASIS combined with point buy/roll allow that.

And, let's not forget, that the archetypes of given races will likely result, at the table, in enough difference to make it work.
But the rules should endeavour to emulate the archetypes. And increasingly that is not happening.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top