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

 

[Mordhau]

And you can change it if you feel it was not agood choice.

If you're going to reply to a post, reply with something meaningful.

Don't spam my notifications with random out of context statements of the obvious.

 

[Hussar]

There is no way they would ever admit that changes made in 4e were unpopular. It would reflect poorly on WotC.

Huh? They admitted this repeatedly. The whole "shouting arms back on" comment was a total admission that changes in 4e were unpopular. Good grief, you got an entire freaking edition because the changes were unpopular. What more do they have to do?

 

[Hussar]

In other notes, thanks folks for the rules update. I could have sworn that being larger granted advantage. But, you folks are absolutely right. I think we've played with this rule since release and never realized it wasn't actually a rule.

 

[JEB]

They didn't say they changed their minds. They said it wasn't their intention at all, and that's just not true.

While Wizards has suggested certain recent policy announcements were always the plan, despite evidence to the contrary, in this case I think they carefully avoided that. As @AcererakTriple6 noted, they say "for quite some time," which leaves them room to have made this decision after 5E's launch. Of course, that invites speculation as to exactly when they changed their mind, and why... but we may never know.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you're going to reply to a post, reply with something meaningful.

Don't spam my notifications with random out of context statements of the obvious.

Feel free to ignore me. You seem to do so anyway.

I read my post again and yours I replied to. And it was a direct answer to your last sentence.
If you feel your design decision was bad, you can change it.
It is their game and they can change it.
You don't have to like it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

While Wizards has suggested certain recent policy announcements were always the plan, despite evidence to the contrary, in this case I think they carefully avoided that. As @AcererakTriple6 noted, they say "for quite some time," which leaves them room to have made this decision after 5E's launch. Of course, that invites speculation as to exactly when they changed their mind, and why... but we may never know.

And they removed penalties because they didn't want to penalize "bad" race/class combinations too much.
Probably they underestimated how much value people put in a 16 main stat.

Of course it was stated, that humans got +1 to all stat so they excel at any class. But being not excellent does not mean it was not intended as a valid choice for a race/class combination.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They didn't say they changed their minds. They said it wasn't their intention at all, and that's just not true.

Can I have a quote please.
That kind of communication would be not so great, I admit.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In other notes, thanks folks for the rules update. I could have sworn that being larger granted advantage. But, you folks are absolutely right. I think we've played with this rule since release and never realized it wasn't actually a rule.

That "rule" falls well within the "DM may grant advantage when they seem it is appropriate" rule.

 

[Mordhau]

Feel free to ignore me. You seem to do so anyway.

I read my post again and yours I replied to. And it was a direct answer to your last sentence.
If you feel your design decision was bad, you can change it.
It is their game and they can change it.
You don't have to like it.

Have you heard the news about water? Apparently it is moist; some, and I'm being cautious here, because I don't want to overstress the level of certainty, some may even go so far as to call it "wet".

And once you've taken that on board, I have some additional news about the colour of the sky.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

They didn't say they changed their minds. They said it wasn't their intention at all, and that's just not true.

No. They said that it hasn't been what they wanted for "quite some time". "Quite some time" and "never" are distinct phrasings, in intent and meaning.

D&D 5e is getting close to being 8 years old. That's a long time for someone's opinion on a subject to change. It is, in my opinion, far more likely that they have simply changed their minds over the course of the last 8ish years or so than just lying to the public to try and convince them that they never intended for the system to be designed how it is. (Which, again, they did not say. They did not say that they never intended for these types of race-class synergies to be in the game, they said that they haven't liked them for "quite some time". Read what they said, dude.)