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

Hussar

Legend
I was under the impression some were claiming the game "wasn't designed to simulate anything or be realistic". So I can imagine all kinds of things the players might want to do in various situations. Do they need to ask about all of them as if they might not work? Or is it assumed that most things work like they do on earth unless called out otherwise?
Using the mechanics of any edition of D&D, tell me how long it takes to boil water.

I'll wait.

Oh, wait, the mechanics of any edition of D&D say absolutely nothing about how long it takes to boil water (or in fact, pretty much any physics type questions at all).

What do you think a simulationist game looks like? Do you really think a Sim based game is a physics engine? And, if you do think that, why one earth would you think D&D is a sim based game?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
Ok this I don't understand. If I point out that a system has certain optimal results that suggest certain outcomes people complain that it only applies to players who optimise.

But the whole issue of removing ASIs is also only necessary if players feel the need to optimise. If you don't care that you're Half-Orc doesn't have the optimal stat bonus for a Wizard, then nothing needed to be changed.

If the design didn't nudge people in certain directions, or it doesn't matter if it only applies to optimers, then what exactly was the case for change? Either the direction design nudges people matters or it doesn't.

Of course, it's not just optimising, it's also about easily identifiable synergies that make decision making easy, and in many cases match the art in books and the fluff as well. I think that's one of the main reason WotC held onto the design priorities they've had for so long. An absolutely flat list of options is not necessarily desirable for new players.

Of course people are right to see the design as impactful. Just look at this:

View attachment 150983
The most obvious synergies are overwhelmingly impactful. Half-Orc Fighters and Barbarians or Firbolg Druids absolutely dwarf the number of other classes for these races.
But, the thing is, you don't lose that by tossing ASI's. You absolutely can have the identical half-orc fighter with a +2 Str. There's nothing that prevents that. What you can ALSO have though, is a high Int orc too.

Where's the problem? It's not like ASI's being delinked from race suddenly means that you absolutely can never put the stat bonuses in exactly the same place you did before. It's just that you're no longer forced to.

Is that really the issue? That some people might choose to play the game differently?
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Using the mechanics of any edition of D&D, tell me how long it takes to boil water.

I'll wait.

Oh, wait, the mechanics of any edition of D&D say absolutely nothing about how long it takes to boil water (or in fact, pretty much any physics type questions at all).

What do you think a simulationist game looks like? Do you really think a Sim based game is a physics engine? And, if you do think that, why one earth would you think D&D is a sim based game?

I thought there was a claim that games don't need to be realistic or simulate anything. I was trying to show that a game lacking any realism would be very bizarre.

I certainly don't want rules for every possibility (like boiling water) and don't think it's possible, or that anyone wants that. But when there are rules for things it feels like some versimilitude would be nice - that they make sense in the game world's fiction. And since the game world description can't possibly establish everything conceivable, much of that world's fiction will come from the real world.

If a 3rd grader has a chance of beating the world's strongest man in arm wrestling in the game, then it feels like something in the game world description should have laid that out, for example. If the player sets a fireball off to stop someone running away with a bunch of papers - it feels like there should be some game world reason that the papers don't have a chance of igniting on a failed save. etc...
 

Remathilis

Legend
Using the mechanics of any edition of D&D, tell me how long it takes to boil water.

I'll wait.

Instantaneous, assuming you pass your spellcraft check.

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 DMG p93:

Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
I thought there was a claim that games don't need to be realistic or simulate anything. I was trying to show that a game lacking any realism would be very bizarre.

I certainly don't want rules for every possibility (like boiling water) and don't think it's possible, or that anyone wants that. But when there are rules for things it feels like some versimilitude would be nice - that they make sense in the game world's fiction.
Again, the problem is that 'verisimilitude' has become the razor used for excising creativity, fun and fantasy from the game.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Again, the problem is that 'verisimilitude' has become the razor used for excising creativity, fun and fantasy from the game.

What are the great examples of versimilitude ruining things?

For the worlds-strongest-humanoid being a Halfling, there are a number of ways to establish that in world so that it has versimilitude (in world consistency).
  • Have a picture showing someone 3' tall beating a muscular 7' at arm wrestling in the book.
  • Have a story in the book or in game of a halfling doing something normally associated with much larger humanoids and it not being remarkable to the observers.
  • Say in the section on strength that size and type of creatures has no relationship to physical strength.
  • etc...
With any of that warning the person playing the 20 str goliath should fully expect the random halfling they meet to be able to take them arm wrestling. Without it, and with decades of other versions of the game and a book series and movies playing halflings as much weaker, it feels to me like the player of the goliath who just bet his last money on being able to beat the halfling (and another party member using detect magic to see if there was any fishy business) have reason to be pissed when the halfling is just as strong and beats him.
 


Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Fighters.

? I missed that one. What are they doing that Conan or Cugel or Fafhrd weren't?


What fun are they ruining for reflecting what D&D has for 30+ years and much of fiction, that couldn't easily be fixed in world by just making it widely known that the physical ability traits have absolutely no connection to anything size/shape/weight related. It's fine if the sumo wrestlers can run like Usain Bolt if that's how the world works, but feels like kind of a big difference from our world that players might deserve a heads up about.

The 'square fireball' stupidity.
Why are magic fire spells a versimilitude problem? (I'd argue the stupidity is that if the book is on the ground it burns, but if I'm holding it in my hand it doesn't).
 

But, the thing is, you don't lose that by tossing ASI's. You absolutely can have the identical half-orc fighter with a +2 Str. There's nothing that prevents that. What you can ALSO have though, is a high Int orc too.

Where's the problem? It's not like ASI's being delinked from race suddenly means that you absolutely can never put the stat bonuses in exactly the same place you did before. It's just that you're no longer forced to.
I answered all this before. You even liked the post so I would assume you read it.


Is that really the issue? That some people might choose to play the game differently?
Really getting tired of this kind of naughty word.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Why are magic fire spells a versimilitude problem
Precisely.

'Verisimilitude' when it comes to D&D discussions is a buzz word to reject things based on limited imagination and further limited understanding of actual reality.

People can't imagine a strong dude doing better than the 'guy at the gym' can, so fighters have to be limited to that for verisimilitude'.

People can't imagine a strong halfling even though they are a fantasy creature, so they just call them 'third graders' and use verisimilitude to make them worse at martial classes.

People think the game's representations are simulations of actual physics, so they calls spells 'square' because they fit on the grid instead of engaging their imaginations.

Verisimilitude is a parasite in the intestines of the game, contributing nothing while leeching away vital fantastical and game-practical nutrients.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
People can't imagine a strong halfling even though they are a fantasy creature, so they just call them 'third graders' and use verisimilitude to make them worse at martial classes.

They certainly are a fantasy creature. They're a fantasy creature straight from the works of J.R.R. Tolkien where they're weaker. (He was fairly popular, had a few movies made, etc...) Something that was reinforced in one way or another for 30 years of the game.

I'm fine with setting up the game so that isn't true anymore, but it feels strange to me not to telegraph to folks going through the rule book that it doesn't go the way it always has either in the fiction or the real world - that now size has nothing at all to do with physical attributes for humanoids. (And just having all the numbers go the same range doesn't feel like you're telegraphing it to me.)
 


Vaalingrade

Legend
They're a fantasy creature straight from the works of J.R.R. Tolkien where they're weaker. (He was fairly popular, had a few movies made, etc...) Something that was reinforced in one way or another for 30 years of the game.
Except for the part where they became legally distinct from halflings and reimagined in pretty much every setting.

Pretty sure Frodo never rode a dinosaur or ate dudes or was immune to fear.
I'm fine with setting up the game so that isn't true anymore, but it feels strange to me not to telegraph to folks going through the rule book that it doesn't go the way it always has either in the fiction or the real world - that now size has nothing at all to do with physical attributes for humanoids. (And just having all the numbers go the same range doesn't feel like you're telegraphing it to me.)
How is it that having the numbers having the same range isn't enough, but having them be different is enough?

One, it's just attribute numbers; and two there are other attributes that convey strength besides the numbers needed to be effective at the base classes. The argument is actually not that a PC halfling might be as strong as a goliath, it's that a halfling is no longer bad at being a fighter.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
How is it that having the numbers having the same range isn't enough, but having them be different is enough?

It typically doesn't take much to reinforce a perception that fits with established fiction/reality. When something differs it feels nice to call it out.

A beef hamburger or cow's milk usually aren't called out much if at all. The soy/turkey ones and the goat/soy/coconut ones are.

Many things don't have one of the big 8 allergens usually. If your hamburger buns have peanuts in them, it might be nice to alert folks up front.

The argument is actually not that a PC halfling might be as strong as a goliath, it's that a halfling is no longer bad at being a fighter.
And that's a fine thing to want to change. Although if they're just as effective as the goliath with the full sized claymore and full-sized long bow, I might like a picture or some calling out. (And if they aren't, do the smaller weapons do just as much damage as the big ones? If not, does that mean they aren't as effective?)
 


Vaalingrade

Legend
No it hasn’t. It just has been for the stuff you like. Don’t pretend it’s universal.
Oh my god, I didn't realize the opinions I post online are opinions without explicitly saying so every single time for no other reason to prevent posts telling me so. Thanks!
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
It typically doesn't take much to reinforce a perception that fits with established fiction/reality. When something differs it feels nice to call it out.

A beef hamburger or cow's milk usually aren't called out much if at all. The soy/turkey ones and the goat/soy/coconut ones are.

Many things don't have one of the big 8 allergens usually. If your hamburger buns have peanuts in them, it might be nice to alert folks up front.
We're still talking about imaginary numbers for imaginary creatures that aren't actually, right? No one is going to die because halflings are allowed to play any class well.
And if they aren't, do the smaller weapons do just as much damage as the big ones? If not, does that mean they aren't as effective?)
Weapon damage is already meaningless babble. Daggers do d4 despite being the go-so weapon for ending fools.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
We're still talking about imaginary numbers for imaginary creatures that aren't actually, right? No one is going to die because halflings are allowed to play any class well.

Yes, and I'm surprised you missed that my point about calling out the unusual and not about lethality.

Wait, what? Now we're involving sqrt(-1) in combat!?!?


Weapon damage is already meaningless babble. Daggers do d4 despite being the go-so weapon for ending fools.

Is there anything you actually like about game? The list of possibilities gets shorter with each post? ;-)
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Yes, and I'm surprised you missed that my point about calling out the unusual and not about lethality.
I mean I caught the weird emotional manipulation of comparing it to peanut allergies. I should get some credit there.
Is there anything you actually like about game? The list of possibilities gets shorter with each post? ;-)
Desperately begging people to stop taking things away for 'verisimilitude' does not imply not liking anything.

And I didn't even say I didn't like weapon damage, just that there is no universe where one can pretend it's realistic or versimitude-y. Which actually makes them kind of great. A big dumb sword does more damage because it looks scarier and absolutely no other reason.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
I feel like I'm misreading something. The Dwarves couldn't have a constitution below 9, and the other races could. Let Con=3d6. E(Con|Con>=9) surely feels bigger than E(Con).
You're still rolling 3d6, the average is still 10.5.
 
Last edited:

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top