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

 

[billd91]

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.

I wouldn’t expect making a living as a professional to require a roll since the outcome is unlikely to be in doubt by 5e standards.

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?

Clarity. Given how often people ask fairly obvious questions, which apparently aren’t so obvious to some people, I would expect explicitly including forgery to be helpful.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e was a leveler: all classes used the same framework of at-will, encounter, and daily powers. 4e organized classes by "role" (Controller, Defender, Leader, or Striker). So for 4e, the difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer, was no longer a difference of vancian versus nonvancian, it was of Controller versus Striker. The Wizard spells did things like block enemy mobility, while the Sorcerer dealt heavier damage.

5e became an identity crisis for the Sorcerer. Vancian casting that prepares each slot ahead of time no longer exists, and all spellcasters cast spontaneously choosing on the fly which spell to use for a slot. Any spellcasting class can potentially fulfill any role. There is no meaningful mechanical difference between Wizard and Sorcerer. The 5e Sorcerer focuses on "bloodlines". Yet, the Sorcerer continues to rely on material components rather than the bloodline to cast spells, so the thematic dissonance remains problematic.

You seem to be confusing the 5e sorcerer with the Pathfinder sorcerer. Bloodlines are a Pathfinder Sorcerer thing because the only actual reason 3.X could be bothered to offer for why sorcerers could cast spells was "they might have the blood of dragons in them I guess?"

4e produced and 5e continued with the idea that sorcerers get their magic from other stuff. A wizard studies for their magic, a warlock bargains for it. A sorcerer is None Of The Above. A seventh son of a seventh son is a sorcerer. So is someone born at midnight on the night of the conjunction of the planets. Or who is dragonblooded. Or someone who has been exposed to too much raw magic. Or someone who has been infected by a far realm parasite and had their mind cracked open.

As for components, again you don't seem to be talking about 5e so much as you are Pathfinder. Spell components are for all practical purposes an entirely optional and largely vestigial player-side rule other than the expensive ones in 5e. I have literally never seen a non-wizard in 5e pick spell components over an arcane focus, and a sorcerer using an attuned crystal to focus their power I've never seen be problematic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Clarity. Given how often people ask fairly obvious questions, which apparently aren’t so obvious to some people, I would expect explicitly including forgery to be helpful.

And I would expect including forgery to be helpful if and only if a list of potential uses are included. Such as creating replacement parts and copying books. I'm not aware of any other class features that do this.

If they only give one potential use when there are so many others then I'd consider including that use to be actively misleading because it will cause most tables to narrow in on that use. Which harms creativity.

 

[Hussar]

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



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 when the range between average (0 bonus) and the absolute most strong is only five gradiations then you have to accept that each “plus” is covering a huge range.

I find sim arguments ultimately self defeating because it’s all about one person’s view of what is believable. Why are there no cries that dwarves get a str bonus when they shouldn’t. How about elves? How is an elf possibly physically equal to a human when an elf is like half the size?

In other words it’s never about actually simulating anything. It’s about satisfying someone’s personal preference.

 

[Hussar]

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

To facilitate game play.

Tell me what a 16 charisma looks like and then we can talk about what is being simulated.

Edit to add.

People have a really strange set of criteria. Other than Strength, the stats have virtually no objective meaning. Look at the umpteen “how do you play low Int” type threads. What does a 14 Wisdom actually mean? Or a 13 Constitution?

So if five out of the six stats are complete abstract and have no objective value, and simulate nothing, why do we insist Strength be different?

 

[MGibster]

I find sim arguments ultimately self defeating because it’s all about one person’s view of what is believable. Why are there no cries that dwarves get a str bonus when they shouldn’t. How about elves? How is an elf possibly physically equal to a human when an elf is like half the size?

For me, the halfling is just a bridge too far. But I've made similar arguments about the dwarf as well. Odds are good they're going to get their rear ends handed to them by opponents who are taller and have a longer reach. This is all about preference. My preference for halflings not being as strong as goliaths isn't based on objectivity it's just my preference. It's not more valid than those who opt for the halfing to be as strong.

 

[billd91]

But when the range between average (0 bonus) and the absolute most strong is only five gradiations then you have to accept that each “plus” is covering a huge range.

I find sim arguments ultimately self defeating because it’s all about one person’s view of what is believable. Why are there no cries that dwarves get a str bonus when they shouldn’t. How about elves? How is an elf possibly physically equal to a human when an elf is like half the size?

In other words it’s never about actually simulating anything. It’s about satisfying someone’s personal preference.

I think you’re assuming, erroneously, that a difference between a +1 modifier and a +2 needs to mean or simulate something other or more sophisticated than the latter is more likely to succeed at a specific strength feat or hit harder than the former. It doesn’t need to. It simulates that aspect of varying strength just fine.

 

[MGibster]

Tell me what a 16 charisma looks like and then we can talk about what is being simulated.

I couldn't find a 16 but I found a 17.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To facilitate game play.

Tell me what a 16 charisma looks like and then we can talk about what is being simulated.

So they created the six attributes, explained very clearly in every edition what they represented, gave bonuses and penalties on those attributes to every nonhuman race, but never intended them to simulate anything? That is ridiculous on the face of it.

 

[Hussar]

I think you’re assuming, erroneously, that a difference between a +1 modifier and a +2 needs to mean or simulate something other or more sophisticated than the latter is more likely to succeed at a specific strength feat or hit harder than the former. It doesn’t need to. It simulates that aspect of varying strength just fine.

Again combat is pretty abstract and is not meant as a similulation. So if we’re talking about what the stats mean in a sim fashion, you need to tell me what is actually being simulated.

Can succeed on a check 5% more often isn’t much of a simulation.