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

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

Except that you still have to deal with people's perceptions, and its hard to grok the idea that the tiny halfling can be just as strong as the giant Goliath. The attribute is called Strength, and it directly affects lifting ability. Those are real things in the real world, and is reasonable to assume a person seeing those things is going to make certain, entirely reasonable assumptions. If the designers don't explain somehow that what's actually going on is not what it looks like, people will see what makes sense to them in the real world and be confused. Even though you clearly think otherwise,, the level of fantasy you're asking for is above and beyond and requires additional explanation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean I caught the weird emotional manipulation of comparing it to peanut allergies. I should get some credit there.

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.

To be fair, there are an awful lot of things about the game you seem not to like. Vehemently.

 

[Malmuria]

Except that you still have to deal with people's perceptions, and its hard to grok the idea that the tiny halfling can be just as strong as the giant Goliath. The attribute is called Strength, and it directly affects lifting ability. Those are real things in the real world, and is reasonable to assume a person seeing those things is going to make certain, entirely reasonable assumptions. If the designers don't explain somehow that what's actually going on is not what it looks like, people will see what makes sense to them in the real world and be confused. Even though you clearly think otherwise,, the level of fantasy you're asking for is above and beyond and requires additional explanation.

I’ve played video games where my character walks around with a dozen suits of armor, 30 weapons, and all sorts of miscellaneous equipment like a bunch of full mugs of beer, and it manages to not break immersion. Dnd is a little more realistic in that way, but you still have people with average str scores being able to casually carry 150lbs of equipment all day. And they can fall 50 feet and shake it off over lunch. Everyone is going to have a different point where things start to seem not-realistic, and it would be impossible for the designers to know exactly what that point is given how fantastical the game is overall.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I went over that earlier in the thread. I pointed out that Powerful Build only really makes Goliaths the strongest character if they follow the other design elements of the class which lead them towards playing a Strength based character. Likewise Natural Athlete is most valuable if you have a good strength score.

In other words, race abilities to work with the ASI, in it's absence the whole package needs a rethink.

Why?
I think the whole package is a perfect match for losing ASI. You can enforce natural strong and big character without touching a score that has too many gaming implications.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Where is your stats about race class synergie without ASI?
To make a real good statistical case you need the comparison between those two.
You might do correlation, but you never know if there is a hidden factor you missed. (Maybe pictures of Goliaths are more influencing than the ASI).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’ve played video games where my character walks around with a dozen suits of armor, 30 weapons, and all sorts of miscellaneous equipment like a bunch of full mugs of beer, and it manages to not break immersion. Dnd is a little more realistic in that way, but you still have people with average str scores being able to casually carry 150lbs of equipment all day. And they can fall 50 feet and shake it off over lunch. Everyone is going to have a different point where things start to seem not-realistic, and it would be impossible for the designers to know exactly what that point is given how fantastical the game is overall.

Maybe not, but it does seem that are moving where that line is of late, which will necessarily leave some people on the other side.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I am not sure if a very strong halfling might actually be in an advantageous situation, because of the vastly different length of the arm.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not sure if a very strong halfling might actually be in an advantageous situation, because of the vastly different length of the arm.

Shhh!! We're not supposed to notice or care about that!

 

[Scars Unseen]

Why?
I think the whole package is a perfect match for losing ASI. You can enforce natural strong and big character without touching a score that has too many gaming implications.

I don't agree with that. It's a perfect match for losing ability scores, if that was a direction the game decided to take, but otherwise, you have two things serving similar purposes that can be at odds with each other, which is kind of the worst of both worlds IMO.

 

[Hussar]

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...

And that would be absolutely true. The GAME of D&D isn't realistic, nor does it simulate anything. You cannot claim that the game simulates things that aren't covered by the mechanics.

That we freeform things like this doesn't actually change anything. By the standard your talking about, every RPG is simulating reality.

That a 3rd grader has a chance of beating the world's strongest man in arm wresting in the game HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE. The list of things with a strength modifier shows how unrealistic it actually is. The fact that the greatest long jumper in 5e D&D is a DWARF shows you how unrealistic racial ASI's are.

Any realism that the game has is what you, the player and the DM add in. The game itself sure doesn't. And it never has.

 

[Hussar]

Except that you still have to deal with people's perceptions, and its hard to grok the idea that the tiny halfling can be just as strong as the giant Goliath. The attribute is called Strength, and it directly affects lifting ability. Those are real things in the real world, and is reasonable to assume a person seeing those things is going to make certain, entirely reasonable assumptions. If the designers don't explain somehow that what's actually going on is not what it looks like, people will see what makes sense to them in the real world and be confused. Even though you clearly think otherwise,, the level of fantasy you're asking for is above and beyond and requires additional explanation.

I'm sorry but the whole "it's above and beyond" seems awfully convenient. There are all sorts of things in the game that people would see that would make sense to them in the real world but would be confused by in the game.

After all, you still haven't explained why a dwarf is a better long jumper and swimmer. Apparently, that's perfectly believable. Or why my thousand year old elf can never be a better fighter than your 19 year old human. Or any of the bajillion other D&Disms that make zero sense.

It's all back to that whole canard we saw in the run up to 4e. We'll believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, but, that seventh one, oh, that's just too much.

Yeah, it's way past time for me to walk away from this. This is just endless going around in circles and is not productive. You folks feel free to keep going. I'm clicking that unsubscribe button.

 

[Aldarc]

And that would be absolutely true. The GAME of D&D isn't realistic, nor does it simulate anything. You cannot claim that the game simulates things that aren't covered by the mechanics.

That we freeform things like this doesn't actually change anything. By the standard your talking about, every RPG is simulating reality.

That a 3rd grader has a chance of beating the world's strongest man in arm wresting in the game HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE. The list of things with a strength modifier shows how unrealistic it actually is. The fact that the greatest long jumper in 5e D&D is a DWARF shows you how unrealistic racial ASI's are.

Any realism that the game has is what you, the player and the DM add in. The game itself sure doesn't. And it never has.

My understanding of GNS is that "simulationism" is that it is far less about simulating any real world notions of "realism," but, rather, it's more about genre/setting simulation. There is a concern for internal consistency, setting interaction, genre versimilitude, etc. but these have more to do with simulating the setting than simulating reality. For example, superhero games as different as Masks, M&M, or Venture City are all meant to help simulate the superhero genre as well as their associated conventions. However, none of these games particularly care one iota about simulating "reality." In some regards, D&D has been somewhat "gamist," likely as @Snarf Zagyg would say can be found described in The Elusive Shift.

Nevertheless, it may be easier to ask in regards to simulationism, what is the "reality" that D&D seeks to simulate? I don't think that it's "reality" or "meat space." By this point in its life, D&D's "Cheesecake Factory" reality (again borrowing Snarf's phrasing) has become its own genre/setting, but one whose menu selection is ever-shifting in response to the changing appetites of its new and/or long-standing customers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the game makes it easy:
Whenever size matters, apply advantage or disadvantage, or raise the DC appropriately.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You're still rolling 3d6, the average is still 10.5.

It's not, if you exclude any results lower than nine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ve played video games where my character walks around with a dozen suits of armor, 30 weapons, and all sorts of miscellaneous equipment like a bunch of full mugs of beer, and it manages to not break immersion. Dnd is a little more realistic in that way, but you still have people with average str scores being able to casually carry 150lbs of equipment all day. And they can fall 50 feet and shake it off over lunch. Everyone is going to have a different point where things start to seem not-realistic, and it would be impossible for the designers to know exactly what that point is given how fantastical the game is overall.

Sure. And what's happening is that for some people the line is being crossed right now, and they're saying that. I'm sure everyone understands that this varies from person to person. And of course from designer perspective it matters whether a significant amount of people care. But I think disassociating mechanics in expense of verisimilitude is an area where they should thread carefully. It is not an unusual area of discomfort for a significant number of people, as evidenced by 4e.

Also. I really wouldn't use video games as comparison. They're not immersive in the same way at all. The strength of tabletop RPGs is that they can portray far more real and immersive world, and if they cannot do that then I have no use for them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure. And what's happening is that for some people the line is being crossed right now, and they're saying that. I'm sure everyone understands that this varies from person to person. And of course from designer perspective it matters whether a significant amount of people care. But I think disassociating mechanics in expense of verisimilitude is an area where they should thread carefully. It is not an unusual area of discomfort for a significant number of people, as evidenced by 4e.

Also. I really wouldn't use video games as comparison. They're not immersive in the same way at all. The strength of tabletop RPGs is that they can portray far more real and immersive world, and if they cannot do that then I have no use for them.

After you assigned your scores in character creation, you won't question it any further. It is quite a big difference to 4e where versimilitude was broken constantly while you were playing. I'd wager the halfling entry in the MM will still have them with low str and high dex, while the goliath or half orc will have 16 to 18 str.
In 3e terms, you would derive a +6 to 8 bonus to strength. A +2 bonus would in no way help.
And in 4e they already removed penalties for stats and none cared (ok, I did for a while...) that now halflings can be as strong as humans. Removing the bonuses is just the logical continuation of that line of thought.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's not, if you exclude any results lower than nine.

I guess if you look over all characters.
If you however only look at fighters who also had a minimum score of 9 (and all incentives to have higher values), you will have the same ability spread for halflings and halforcs.

 

[Cadence]

You're still rolling 3d6, the average is still 10.5.

Just so I'm clear. Your claim is that if players roll 3d6 in order, and choose a class based on what they qualify for, the average Constitution for the Dwarves will be 10.5, even though they have a minimum of 9 required to choose to be a Dwarf?

 

[Vaalingrade]

To be fair, there are an awful lot of things about the game you seem not to like. Vehemently.

"I hate brussels sprouts and liver of all kinds"

"Looks like you hate all food, lol! I'm contributing!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

"I hate brussels sprouts and liver of all kinds"

"Looks like you hate all food, lol! I'm contributing!"

I would like to engage with you intellectually,, but to be honest the constant sarcasm is a bit much.