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

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So what kind of game design would be preferable here? Should there be a bonus (or penalty) to an ability other than str? Because 5e is full of basically arbitrary decisions, some of which connect to existing tropes (elves and dexterity) but many that seem completely arbitrary (tieflings are charismatic and intelligent? water genasi are wise? etc). Looking at the 30+ races that are available, it seems that the ASI choices are as much for variety of options and in some cases to make certain race-class combinations optimal (tiefling warlock), and in this sense are a legacy of 3e-style systems mastery (that is, for gameplay rather than simulation or narrative reasons).

I actually agree that some of the ASIs are pretty arbitrary. Also, humans getting +1 to everything or two +1s kinda makes having at least +1 the expected baseline, so anything less feels like a penalty. I think ASIs should have been rarer. It might have been a mistake to try to design the races symmetrically, instead of just giving them what actually is needed to represent them. Some races make perfect sense with just traits, some make more sense with some ASIs. ASIs are already equated with feats, and traits are basically just bespoke feats or half feats.

 

[Mordhau]

So that is the essence of your argument: you want to be a better fighter just because you are big. That is quite simplistic. If 5e had a more complex combat system that takes more variables into account, +x to strength might be a good Idea, but 5e has a less complex and less simulationism approach.

No. If I wanted to make that argument I would have made it wouldn't I? (Why are people on this site always looking for a hidden meaning?)

If Strength makes you a better Fighter then you should be a better fighter because you are big.

So either we shouldn't have really big characters (just like we don't allow Dragon PCs), Strength shouldn't have such a big effect on melee combat, or we use a much more abstract method of representing character abilities.

I'm just pointing out the incoherence.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In something that really doesn't matter.

It's a bit like saying to the Dragonborn you can have a form of dragon's breath, but you can only use it to start campfires.

Except that how much you can lift is as close to as objective a measure of your strength as there is. If what was important about the strength stat was your actual strength then the fact that a strength 20 halfling barely matches a strength 10 halfling would be vitally important.

But it isn't. That's because Strength is not primarily about strength; it is primarily about how well you can wield weapons. The secondary function of strength is climbing, jumping, and swimming (and climbing at least is strongly hindered by mass). How strong you are is only a tertiary factor of the Strength stat for most people.

Possibly the best thing to do is rename the stats.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If strength doesn't measure how strong you are, then they absolutely should rename it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If strength doesn't measure how strong you are, then they absolutely should rename it.

Wisdom doesn't measure how wise you are.

They're both sacred cows. They're not going anywhere, even if they're misnamed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Wisdom doesn't measure how wise you are.

Well it kinda sorta does if you squint hard enough. It is about sort of zen style wisdom, not about being knowledgeable. But yes, 'awareness' would be a better name, and cover both the physical and spiritual aspect of it.

They're both sacred cows. They're not going anywhere, even if they're misnamed.

Sure. So this is basically why my starting point is "make the stats to matter and have them represent something somewhat sensibly" rather than "get rid of them" as the latter is in reality impossible, whilst the former is just very difficult and unlikely...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure. So this is basically why my starting point is "make the stats to matter and have them represent something somewhat sensibly" rather than "get rid of them" as the latter is in reality impossible, whilst the former is just very difficult and unlikely...

In which case the thing to do is decouple attack and damage rolls from stats. As it was in the beginning.

 

[Malmuria]

Sure. So this is basically why my starting point is "make the stats to matter and have them represent something somewhat sensibly" rather than "get rid of them" as the latter is in reality impossible, whilst the former is just very difficult and unlikely...

I'm confused as to what 'making stats matter' refers to as they are central to almost every mechanical facet of the game (in a way they are not in basic and 1e, for example). Do you mean, make them, in particular Strength, matter in regards to creature size? What mechanical changes would you suggest?

 

[Mordhau]

Except that how much you can lift is as close to as objective a measure of your strength as there is. If what was important about the strength stat was your actual strength then the fact that a strength 20 halfling barely matches a strength 10 halfling would be vitally important.

But it isn't. That's because Strength is not primarily about strength; it is primarily about how well you can wield weapons. The secondary function of strength is climbing, jumping, and swimming (and climbing at least is strongly hindered by mass). How strong you are is only a tertiary factor of the Strength stat for most people.

Possibly the best thing to do is rename the stats.

This is true, but if you have Strength then it really ought to have some relationship to damage at least. (Even if only by allowing you to use oversized weapons or something).

It would be possible to have Accuracy independent of Strength (although putting it in Dex is also an Issue - although that could be resolved in some way).

With D&D being the kind of game that it is, being exceptionally big and strong in the fiction really needs to have some kind of concrete affect on the way that you fight. It doesn't have to make the character the best, there can be multiple ways of approaching the issue that are equally effective, but it at least needs to be somewhat distinct. This may be hard to do without extensive real and genuine playtesting, but the game needs to at least be honest about the kind of characters it can do with the priorities it has and the resources it's willing to invest in them.

Also Powerful Build is really just one function. It's carrying capacity - Strength over time, and something an awful lot of games don't even worry about. It doesn't even have an effect on making a Strength roll to move a boulder or overturn a wagon. (It's not a character defining trait, it's a "here's an extra thing.")

 

[RoughCoronet0]

Huh….well I’m probably just going to be posting to the void considering the conversation currently but….I was curious so I’ll still ask.

How many people are going to use these new changes? Are you going to use all of them or just some of them mixed with some of the old options? Any you plan on tweaking any somewhat?

I’m currently working on a master list of racial options for my campaign world and I’ve been seeing what I want to use from these. Some races like the Bugbear, Centaur, Changeling, and the Elves I’m using the new options. However for some I have been tweaking features, like Aasimar being able to choose a cleric cantrips instead of only getting light, or adding a couple of spells to the Aarakocra, giving a choice of a tool proficiency to the Duergar, and returning the magic resistance of the Satyr and Yuan-ti to effecting both spells and other magical effects.