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

 

[Weiley31]

I believe one of those is a chicken.

Are you implying he's wearing a disguise to look like human guys?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Crimson Longinus
Based on what you've said here and elsewhere, you'd prefer racial ability scores continue to exist. You have also said you embrace inclusivity. If you don't mind, I'd like your opinion on the contrast between what has been described (all races may take +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1, so long as they differ) and the following.



Because...from where I'm standing the two are in all ways identical in actual impact other than giving you an official seal of approval on "this is the Official Flavor of this race." Which I really don't think is all that necessary, and I'm fairly sure you don't either--leastwise I'm fairly sure you have 0 problems house-ruling anything official that interferes with your intent, and I don't see how this is any different. Yet if you don't care for the above, it would seem that it is in fact that you've got some issues with expressing a pretty basic form of inclusivity: "some people just don't fit the norm for their origin." (Hence why I was so focused on the "truly average people don't exist" thing. The average dwarf may be much stronger and hardier than a human, but that says nothing whatsoever about whether a specific dwarf needs to have a minimum floor of physical strength higher than the minimum floor of human strength.)

The difference is the same than with classes having bespoke spell lists and the situation where that is not the case and any class can choose any spell. In the latter situation the payer could still choose what was on the traditional spell list if they wanted, but it wouldn't be quite the same wouldn't it? Ultimately in a splat based game I want the splats to actually mechanically say something about the concepts they represent. if they don't, they serve no purpose. And every 'but this character is individual, so they can be different' equally applies to all racial traits and class features. What if this elf is unique and doesn't see in the dark? What if this wizard has studied healing magic? And literally everything else. If the desire is for every character to be an unique individual not bound by archetypes, (and that's a valid desire) then a splat based game simply is bad starting point. That sort of thing works way better in a game where the characters can actually be freely be built (usually with some sort of point system) by mixing and matching different things.

(And for some reason some people seem to think that ASIs are the only form of ability generation. But of course they're just a small part of it. Most of your ability scores come form roll/point buy, so you still have a huge amount of individual variation.)

And yes, I can houserule anything. But everybody can. That's a total Oberoni fallacy.

 

[Hussar]

There are outliers in every population - that's why the stats are on a distribution that approximates a normal curve. But if they were both active the same amount and led a similar lifestyle of work and activity (ie were about the same point on the curve), but one were twice the size of the other, which would you expect to be able to be able to tote around more weight or be able to apply more force to a task? That's why the ASI difference is appropriate.

But, again, the scale we are using just doesn't really cover that. If we're talking about 1st level characters (which we have to be, since all characters can equal all other characters in strength at higher levels - everyone caps at 20) - then there is zero difference between a halfling and a human and hasn't been in 5e at all - the halfling has a 16 str (presuming point buy) and the human has a 17 - effectively the same score. Same as the elf or the gnome or the half-elf or a hill dwarf. So, it's not like size has really mattered all that much.

Now, as far as having a Str bonus, why is that 5 foot mountain dwarf as strong as the 7 foot Dragonborn or Half-orc? After all, that dwarf is considerably smaller than either, and isn't all that much bigger than a human. A dwarf averages at 150 pounds. 4 1/2 feet tall and 150 pounds isn't actually all that big. Bit on the portly side maybe, but, there are certainly humans who fit that description. And yet no one is clamoring about the "verisimilitude" of this. Why aren't people complaining about this?

The point is, dwarves are "supposed" to be strong, so, it's fine because it fits with the archetype. Verisimilitude and simulation has ZERO to do with it. People just don't want the game to permit players to ignore archetypes.

The question in my mind is simple - are players ignoring the archetypes often enough that we need to promote archetypes with mechanics? Have you seen a 20 strength halfling in your game? After many years of 5e being played, is this ACTUALLY an issue? Is there this massive push to play against the halfling "type"? If not, then who cares? It makes zero difference to have this rule. No one's actually doing it, so, why get bothered about the possibilities?

 

[Hussar]

So, it's implausible and hurts verisimilitude to have a halfling as strong as a half-orc, but, it's perfectly acceptable that a mountain dwarf, at 150 pounds, is just as strong as a goliath at 300 pounds.

This is why I keep harping about the fact that the scale we're using does not actually simulate anything. If the biggest race to get a Str bonus only gets a +2, why is anything else getting any bonus at all? How do you justify, in your head, the fact that two races, one almost exactly twice the size of the other, get the SAME bonus, but, two other races, don't?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, it's implausible and hurts verisimilitude to have a halfling as strong as a half-orc, but, it's perfectly acceptable that a mountain dwarf, at 150 pounds, is just as strong as a goliath at 300 pounds.

This is why I keep harping about the fact that the scale we're using does not actually simulate anything. If the biggest race to get a Str bonus only gets a +2, why is anything else getting any bonus at all? How do you justify, in your head, the fact that two races, one almost exactly twice the size of the other, get the SAME bonus, but, two other races, don't?

Sure, Goliaths should get a bigger bonus. So let's do that.

On the other hand if the conclusion is that ability scores don't simulate anything, then it is time to delete them. The purpose of rules is to mechanically represent the fictional reality. If they cannot do that, they serve no purpose.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

then there is zero difference between a halfling and a human and hasn't been in 5e at all - the halfling has a 16 str (presuming point buy) and the human has a 17 - effectively the same score.

No. The point buy max is 15. So humans can start with a better modifier than the halflings.

 

[Cadence]

So, it's implausible and hurts verisimilitude to have a halfling as strong as a half-orc, but, it's perfectly acceptable that a mountain dwarf, at 150 pounds, is just as strong as a goliath at 300 pounds.

This is why I keep harping about the fact that the scale we're using does not actually simulate anything. If the biggest race to get a Str bonus only gets a +2, why is anything else getting any bonus at all? How do you justify, in your head, the fact that two races, one almost exactly twice the size of the other, get the SAME bonus, but, two other races, don't?

The Dwarf is almost 4x as heavy as the Halfling, right?

Anyway, as long as STR determines melee to-hit, it doesn't annoy me too much that game play seems to win over versimilitude here. If STR didn't do that, I can imagine all kinds of rules I'd consider for adding some versimilitude.

 

[Faolyn]

Sorry, meant it would be true of any party containing that particular gnome.

Would it also mean in that world that the strongest gnome was as strong as the strongest Half-orc?

No, because the strongest half-orc is either going to be a PC (in which case, and if there's also the strongest gnome in the world, the two players can discuss how they want to handle this) or an NPC (in which case, the DM can say that this NPC has a Strength of, say, 24, which no PC can hope to achieve without certain magics).

 

[billd91]

The question in my mind is simple - are players ignoring the archetypes often enough that we need to promote archetypes with mechanics? Have you seen a 20 strength halfling in your game? After many years of 5e being played, is this ACTUALLY an issue? Is there this massive push to play against the halfling "type"? If not, then who cares? It makes zero difference to have this rule. No one's actually doing it, so, why get bothered about the possibilities?

Yeah, it’s actually been an issue. That’s what all the arguing is about. If it wasn’t, then nobody would have felt the need to argue for Tasha’s changes. They’d have been content to be a point or two off the optimized stat. But there have been quite a few people on these boards saying they basically can‘t or won’t play a character without the advantageous ASI for their class.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The Dwarf is almost 4x as heavy as the Halfling, right?

Yep.

Anyway, as long as STR determines melee to-hit, game play seems to win over versimilitude here for me. If it didn't I can imagine all kinds of rules I'd consider.

But there are finesse weapons. Strength is the biggest disbelief suspender stress point, but also the least balance issue. You can still make an effective melee fighter in any class except barbarian* even with crap strength.

(*And that should be fixed)