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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And I pointed out that the two were obviously different, to which you replied “yeah that’s my point”.

Hmmh... Maybe I mixed up 2 lines of discussion.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure. Increase the cap for them as well. That would make sense.

To me this very much sounds like they're supposed to simulate the creature's capability in the described areas. Is the PHB lying to me?

Why on earth would we have rules in an RPG otherwise? If the rules do not represent the fictional reality, what purpose they have? I am not interested in the game as some disconnected mathematical exercise.

Of course it does simulate something. The relative physical prowess of creatures of the same type mostly.
And the absolute prowess of swinging swords, climbing, sneaking and so on.

The pproblem is, that if you want a simple approach as 5e choses, you can´t always have both simlated correctly. In 3e, bigger creatures gained advantage to grapple checks but a penalty to AC and to to-hit-bonus. They also got a multiplyer for carrying capacity.

To get the more nuanced approach, stat bonuses were a lot more spread out and could reach far higher values. But tha simulationist approach ran into the problem of having too big variances to have a stable system (at higher levels).

That does not mean, that this approach is bad, but 5e had a different goal from the beginning.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think it follows that getting rid of racial ASI/limits means that ability scores don't simulate anything.

Sure. But another poster claimed that they've never simulated anything nor they should. So I was responding to that.

Part of the point of ability scores is to simulate a fictional reality, but those mechanics also exist for fun gameplay and to facilitate storytelling. You could add in all sorts of modifications, qualifiers, and subsystems that would make the game more like 1e, or even 3e, but at the expense of other aspects of gameplay. For example, you might easily argue that the skill system needs more skills, more levels of granularity in skill proficiency, ability to learn new skills, etc. Those mechanics could be added in either for the sake of gameplay "crunch," or to better simulate how a character's talents and abilities would actually work, but at the expense of making the game more complicated and slower to run.

Personally I prefer a rules lite approach, where the DM in collaboration with the table can figure out what's "realistic" for their world on a case by case basis.

I like things pretty rules light too, and I wouldn't conflate the amount of detail with simulationism. You can do rules light in simulationistic manner, it just won't be a detailed simulation. Basically "stronger things have higher strength score" is a simulation if it is applied coherently regarding the fictional reality, regardless of whether we measure that strength with a three step or a thousand step scale.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like things pretty rules light too, and I wouldn't conflate the amount of detail with simulationism. You can do rules light in simulationistic manner, it just won't be a detailed simulation. Basically "stronger things have higher strength score" is a simulation if it is applied coherently regarding the fictional reality, regardless of whether we measure that strength with a three step or a thousand step scale.

But there are better ways to simulate that. And this is just straight increase carrying capacity by a non trivial amount. And if you are bothered by no being able to break things as easily, just give advantage on such checks.

 

[teitan]

Elric is still a magical being who performs magic and relies on it, but magic in the world of Melnibone isn't necssarily about spamming flashy spells left and right like a video game MMO or ARPG character. You may want to check out Through Sunken Lands. There's a class that is clearly inspired by Elric: i.e., "the Eldritch Sorcerer-King." It's a Warrior/Mage hybrid that doesn't get spells but does get cantrips and rituals.

That said, one of my chief complaints about how warlocks work in D&D is that the pact-making class doesn't really involve any real ritual summoning or pact-making. It seemingly relegates the archetype's pact-making to an "off-screen past."

Compare this with the Goetic in MCG's Invisible Sun that involves summoning/binding angels, demons, spirits, etc., and then actively bargaining with them for magical favors, arcane knowledge, etc. This is how one mechanically plays the class.

I don't see the point in having the warlock at all in D&D if it doesn't really have any mechanical teeth or "oomph!" that properly reinforces the archetype. One may as well play as a wizard and roleplaying having a fey, diabolic, or eldritch patron. It's the same difference mechanically speaking.

That’s why I like Patron magic in DCC. The Elf could be reskinned to be Elric with the word changed to Sorceror King.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? The limit is 20, so a bigger bonus doesn't actually do anything.

The ability scores have NEVER simulated anything. It's this insistince on D&D simulating things that is, and always has, caused all the problems.

If they never simulated anything, then explain to me why they were put into the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Personally, I find it doubtful that a paradigm under which kenku can't be described as committing forgery when they clearly are is untenable in the long term.

And personally I find it doubtful that a paradigm under which kenku are described as committing forgery even when they clearly aren't is untenable. It's only forgery when you try and pass it off as something it's not. A medieval or even modern scribe painstakingly copying a manuscript to make as near identical a version as they can because the printing press either isn't a thing or isn't appropriate is making a copy and doing so for good and legitimate reasons. It's only a forgery if they try and pass it off as the original.

Is there some sort of curse on kenku that means that they can't make an honest living as scribes and making artwork so you can have it on your wall at home while not trying to pass it off as the original?

 

[billd91]

And personally I find it doubtful that a paradigm under which kenku are described as committing forgery even when they clearly aren't is untenable. It's only forgery when you try and pass it off as something it's not. A medieval or even modern scribe painstakingly copying a manuscript to make as near identical a version as they can because the printing press either isn't a thing or isn't appropriate is making a copy and doing so for good and legitimate reasons. It's only a forgery if they try and pass it off as the original.

Is there some sort of curse on kenku that means that they can't make an honest living as scribes and making artwork so you can have it on your wall at home while not trying to pass it off as the original?

Sure… but why would you need advantage on a check to make an exact duplicate? Perhaps for successfully passing off a… forgery?

Changing the name of the ability to be more intent neutral is one thing, but why not include forgeries in the described applicability? Right now, it reads like *wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure… but why would you need advantage on a check to make an exact duplicate? Perhaps for successfully passing off a… forgery?

Perhaps - and perhaps not. Perhaps for making your living as a professional. Perhaps because you were actually trying to repair a device and what you need is an exact duplicate of a missing part.

Changing the name of the ability to be more intent neutral is one thing, but why not include forgeries in the described applicability? Right now, it reads like *wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

It's changing the name of the ability to match what it does. If it gives a list of functions such as "making replacement parts" and "making your living as a scribe" then forgery should be included. If the intent isn't actually listed then why list a specific intent?

 

[MGibster]

It does occur to me that most D&D settings are in a pre-industrial age before mass production and interchangeable parts were a thing. The ability to make an exact duplicate of something would be very, very valuable for plenty of legitimate purposes. I imagine a kenku scribe could make a pretty comfortable living legally.