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

 

[Cadence]

That's a 5'2" man. At 150 pounds. Does he look even remotely like that dwarf picture? See, this is the problem in a nutshell. The whole "believable" aspect is grounded in imagery that is in no way even close to realistic. It's how we get 15 pound swords in the game. Someone thought that was what swords weighed after all. It was believable to them.

So, no, I largely reject any notion of "believablility" in these types of discussion because it's so grounded in a personal perceptions that are often not even close to realistic.

I had no solid idea what the heights and weights should be if similar to IRL, so went scouting around.

Average D&D Dwarf is 4'6" and 150 lbs.

BMI has lots of well-documented flaws, but should give some idea.

5'2" and 150 lbs is a BMI of 27.4 <- Photo
4'6" and 150 lbs is a BMI of 36.2 <- Avg D&D Dwarf

A 36.2 BMI for someone who is 5'2" would be 198 pounds.


For humans, 27.4 is the middle of the overweight range. One site has low-risk obesity as 30 to 34.9, moderately-risk obesity as 35 to 39.9, and high risk obesity as 40+. In 2003, the average BMI for American men was 26.6. In 2018 it was up to 29.1. Offensive linemen in the college have a mean BMI of 36 (range of 29-47). One study of pro and amateur sumo wrestlers found an average BMI of 36.5 for their sample.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, the stats actually have zero impact on how the character is to be played. But, they do impact the game. Almost as if they aren't actually simulating anything, but, rather are simply part of the game. I can play my high Int character as completely clueless and that's perfectly fine, or conversely play my 4 Int character as a genius, and that's fine too. It just means that over the course of a campaign, I might succeed or fail a handful of checks. Otherwise there will be zero difference between two characters with differing stats.

How many Int checks does a character make over the course of a campaign? A hundred? How many succeed? 75? So, the low Int character succeeds 65% of the time. The high Int character 85%. Do you really think that's going to make a difference? That in a year of play anyone is going to notice the difference? Never minding that Proficiency Bonus and class features will likely completely overshadow stats pretty quickly.

IOW, even at 1st level, my +1 to proficiency checks and your +5 isn't going to make enough of a difference to be noticeable, particularly in light of the fact that by high level, it's +4 vs +9. Whoopee. It just isn't going to make much difference.

Why we have these numbers then? If they don't simulate anything and aren't even noticeable in play, why have ability scores?

 

[Mordhau]

Why we have these numbers then? If they don't simulate anything and aren't even noticeable in play, why have ability scores?

People have been asking that since 3e.

The answer these days is tradition.

They served a purpose once for telling you something about the kind of character you had, but 5th Edition has bonds and flaws and ideals tables you can roll on, and they're much more fit for that purpose than ability scores.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've said this many times and I say it again: when starting to make the next edition, I want the designers to really ask and answer these two questions:

1) What is the purpose of playable species?
2) What is the purpose of ability scores?

 

[Malmuria]

To me the purpose of the rules is to represent the fictional reality. This doesn't mean they thy must do so in excruciating detail or that things couldn't be abstracted. But the underlying fiction should be the starting point. When I play a RPG I have no interest engaging in a game that is disconnected from the fiction. If I wanted to do that, I could play Tetris while listening an audio novel.


I am really not following you there. I have no idea whether it is a character choice in fiction has to do with anything. It is all player choice in reality. And it is not like people in the setting choose to be porn into sorcerous bloodline either...


So why did they need to change how the races work if adding the custom lineage would have fixed the thing?



Sure. Exactly as I said earlier. Class is what dictates most of your ability scores, not the species.



I can houserule things, and I don't mind doing a little bit of it. But there is a point where it is just easier to use a different game than even create one from scratch, than trying to fix a game that is going into different direction than you want.

If I thought that floating ASI would cause people to play non 5e games I would be even more in favor of it!

My thesis is that D&D's appeal is in big part based on being able to play easily recognisable archetypes, and if people start to feel that the mechanics actually do not reflect the archetypes, it will lead to disengagement. At some point people might say "What you mean that my massive half-orc that looks like Hulk is no stronger than a halfling?" or "What you mean that my Legolas clone is no more dextrous than a dwarf?"

The logic of simulation is different from the logic of archetype, however. I think archetype is better reinforced with special traits than with ASI (Halfling luck, for example, which doesn't really simulate anything physiological but adheres to a genre trope)

This to me is really unconvincing. And If you feel that the rules for PCs don't need to reflect the reality of their species in the setting, why on earth would this logic only apply to ability scores? Why can't my halfling have breath weapon and my orc brave trait? You still could have all the NPC halflings not have breath weapon and all NPC orcs not have brave. So if PCs are not bound by their species why we have dedicated race splats at all ? I don't get it.

It's not that NPCs lack the trait--all halfings or goliaths or whatever will have a Str score. It's just that the PC might be at a rare end of the scale in terms of that score's values. For example, you could have a world where .01% of all Halflings have a Str score of 20, but 10% of all Goliaths have a Str score of 20. So the PC halfling with a Str score of 20 will be far more unique relative to the world than the PC Goliath with a str score of 20.

I get that players want their characters to feel "special" at the table, i.e. relative to other PCs. But I think the special traits do a better job of that than the ASI. A halfling being able to reroll a 1 screams halfling!.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The picture is ridiculous. 4 1/2 feet tall and 150 pounds does NOT look like that. That dwarf is closer to about 250 pounds to look like that. Here's someone who is 5 feet tall and 150 pounds. Do they look like a "barn door"?

View attachment 150164
That's a 5'2" man. At 150 pounds. Does he look even remotely like that dwarf picture? See, this is the problem in a nutshell. The whole "believable" aspect is grounded in imagery that is in no way even close to realistic. It's how we get 15 pound swords in the game. Someone thought that was what swords weighed after all. It was believable to them.

So, no, I largely reject any notion of "believablility" in these types of discussion because it's so grounded in a personal perceptions that are often not even close to realistic.

Obviously, the beards provide buoyancy. No wonder they're so popular!

 

[Cadence]

It's not that NPCs lack the trait--all halfings or goliaths or whatever will have a Str score. It's just that the PC might be at a rare end of the scale in terms of that's score's values. For example, you could have a world where .01% of all Halflings have a Str score of 20, but 10% of all Goliaths have a Str score of 20. So the PC halfling with a Str score of 20 will be far more unique relative to the world than the PC Goliath with a str score of 20.

Does it matter that the goliath player who wants to be a really strong goliath only get to be at the 95th percentile of strength among goliaths while the halfling gets to be at the 99.995th percentile among halflings?

 

[Mordhau]

Issue is that I think for a Goliath being stronger than at least regular humans, is part of their special trait.

I also think that quite often the character's special traits are written to complement their existing ASIs. Half-Orcs and Goliaths are written to be melee combatants. Their whole package is written to support that. (It's overly narrow, but then that in effect is the problem with archetypes.)

Edit: Also the whole thing where the Goliath Sorcerer has a Str of 10 and Powerful Build (which already exists under current rules), is already pretty unsatisfactory.

It's like putting someone in a running race, tying both their legs together, and then giving them a big propeller on their back to compensate.

What it's really saying is that we think Goliaths should be stronger than other races, just not in any way that really matters.

 

[Jer]

The logic of simulation is different from the logic of archetype, however. I think archetype is better reinforced with special traits than with ASI (Halfling luck, for example, which doesn't really simulate anything physiological but adheres to a genre trope)

QFT. Ability score bonuses were added to the game with 3e to get rid of the idea of "ability score maximums" while still paying homage to the archetype idea. The special traits that various races get are much more archetypal than a restriction that requires a player to apply their +2 bonus to a specific ability score to force an archetypal linkage of class and race they might actually want to play against instead of into.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If I thought that floating ASI would cause people to play non 5e games I would be even more in favor of it!

Fair!

The logic of simulation is different from the logic of archetype, however. I think archetype is better reinforced with special traits than with ASI (Halfling luck, for example, which doesn't really simulate anything physiological but adheres to a genre trope)

I really, really think it depends on the archetypes. The issue here is that there are ability scores that clearly represent certain things. And if archetype is directly related to one of those areas, it feels weird if it cannot be best at it. Like sure, for some things, "has a breath weapon" is an iconic part of the archetype, and that obviously is best represented with a trait. But if the archetype is "a species of computer-like super geniuses" or "big strong guys" it feels weird if they cannot be be better at Int and Str respectively than others.

It's not that NPCs lack the trait--all halfings or goliaths or whatever will have a Str score. It's just that the PC might be at a rare end of the scale in terms of that's score's values. For example, you could have a world where .01% of all Halflings have a Str score of 20, but 10% of all Goliaths have a Str score of 20. So the PC halfling with a Str score of 20 will be far more unique relative to the world than the PC Goliath with a str score of 20.

Sure. Though I think really is hart to get across. Though this of course is true for PCs in general. Int 20 may be the smartest person in entire world like of which will be born once in hundred years... and also every wizard PC ever who's played long enough. I feel that there are a lot of issues in how ability scores are handled even outside the species issue. Furthermore, as for your example, we could also easily imagine a world where 0.00% of halflings has Str 20. Or 18 for that matter. And I think that would be far more plausible. There simply are not super rare extra strong wolves that are as strong as strongest bears. It is not rare, it is literally impossible. (And yes, I know that under current rules everyone can raise a stat to 20 eventually, but I don't like that either.)

I get that players want their characters to feel "special" at the table, i.e. relative to other PCs. But I think the special traits do a better job of that than the ASI. A halfling being able to reroll a 1 screams halfling!.

Again, depends on what the archetypes niche actually is.