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

 

[Hussar]

And, the thing is though, that if ASI's are there to promote "iconic" versions of race/class, we need to actually ask, "Is this still iconic now? And, will it still be iconic ten years from now?"

What's iconic about a Dragonborn? We might say melee classes, but, that's because of the ASI's. It wasn't that the dragonborn paladin was iconic, so, they designed the race that way - they MADE that combination iconic, even though it doesn't actually resemble anything iconic from genre fiction.

Dwarves and Elves are iconic as fighters and archers/wizards because of Tolkien. Fair enough, I suppose. But, the genre has changed immensely in the past twenty or thirty years. There is more original fantasy fiction from 2000-2021 than was written in the previous century. DOTA and The Witcher are likely just as iconic in many people's minds as Lord of the Rings. Certainly more directly accessible anyway. Or Monster Hunter. Or any number of other properties.

But, if we insist on tying race to ASI in order to promote an iconic image of that race in play, then we're promoting a rather singular vision of that race from a very small number of sources. There is some danger in becoming irrelevant if we insist that iconic versions of various races follow from sources that are becoming less and less in the forefront of the genre.

I think that it is no surprise that races like Tiefling and Dragonborn, races with virtually no traditional ties in the game, have become two of the most popular races in the game, while races with ties to older properties seem to be falling out of popularity more and more every year.

 

[Mordhau]

And, the thing is though, that if ASI's are there to promote "iconic" versions of race/class, we need to actually ask, "Is this still iconic now? And, will it still be iconic ten years from now?"

What's iconic about a Dragonborn? We might say melee classes, but, that's because of the ASI's. It wasn't that the dragonborn paladin was iconic, so, they designed the race that way - they MADE that combination iconic, even though it doesn't actually resemble anything iconic from genre fiction.

Dwarves and Elves are iconic as fighters and archers/wizards because of Tolkien. Fair enough, I suppose. But, the genre has changed immensely in the past twenty or thirty years. There is more original fantasy fiction from 2000-2021 than was written in the previous century. DOTA and The Witcher are likely just as iconic in many people's minds as Lord of the Rings. Certainly more directly accessible anyway. Or Monster Hunter. Or any number of other properties.

But, if we insist on tying race to ASI in order to promote an iconic image of that race in play, then we're promoting a rather singular vision of that race from a very small number of sources. There is some danger in becoming irrelevant if we insist that iconic versions of various races follow from sources that are becoming less and less in the forefront of the genre.

I think that it is no surprise that races like Tiefling and Dragonborn, races with virtually no traditional ties in the game, have become two of the most popular races in the game, while races with ties to older properties seem to be falling out of popularity more and more every year.

I'd agree with that; it's just I think the whole design needs a proper rethink.

Eg. In the case of Goliaths we need some more thought into how to make their size and strength feel meaningful if the character is a Wizard rather than a Barbarian.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, but I think that far from underestimating it, the design is actually making use of that pressure toward optimisation. I can't find a quote now, but I seem to remember an interview with Mearls about 4e, where he said that it was an explicit goal they had to reinforce character types that were considered "iconic."

This is why a Dwarf Fighter in 4e is an absolutely awesome defender/tank character, to the point of perhaps being a little overpowered. It was a correction from 3e when if you asked someone what was the best tank you would have got answer like Half Dragon/Aasimar/Paladin 3/Cleric1 /Soul of the Radiant Sun4 /Sacred Fist 3 etc, which can leave the guy who just wants to play a simple Dwarf Fighter and be really tough feeling somewhat overwhelmed.

5e seems to have been designed with the same thinking in mind.

I don’t think that the reinforcement you’re talking about is (or is intended to be) anything more than very very mild “dwarf fighters are gonna be good, but the system doesn’t punish you for using a dwarf Wizard”.

The race mechanics of 5e just aren’t especially significant.

This new set of variants do tend to have more real meat, though, which is nice.

 

[Faolyn]

Possible. But if they can be influenced by Tradition or Upper Management, they can surely be influenced by Social Media Pressure.

But was there as much social media pressure back when they first put out the books, way back when they were first designing 5e? I'm thinking not so much. Which is why they're changing things now, because (if I'm right and they were forced to put the races in the way they were), now they can use the excuse of social media pressure to allow them to present the races in a way they prefer).

 

[Aldarc]

But was there as much social media pressure back when they first put out the books, way back when they were first designing 5e? I'm thinking not so much. Which is why they're changing things now, because (if I'm right and they were forced to put the races in the way they were), now they can use the excuse of social media pressure to allow them to present the races in a way they prefer).

I'm not sure if I would phrase this as "social media pressure" when I think that the more neutrally phrased "online fan engagement" suffices. Plus, I do think that WotC has cultivated enough goodwill among the fanbase over the past seven years that they can safely make these changes now. I would also consider the fact that WotC has been hiring a lot of talent for employee and freelance positions who likewise helped shape their thinking and direction. It's not like WotC of 2014 is the WotC of 2022. And given WotC's overwhelming success with D&D over the past seven years, I think that they are also in a much stronger position to make the changes that they want.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And given WotC's overwhelming success with D&D over the past seven years, I think that they are also in a much stronger position to make the changes that they want.

This, in my opinion, is the main point to take from most of these recent changes. 5e was designed largely as an apology for 4e to the older players that left the game to play Pathfinder or continued to just play 3e/3.5e during the 4e era and get them buying official D&D products again, as well as a simplified system so it would be easier than earlier editions for new players to learn and get into.

And this formula of "appeasing to the old guard" and "making the game more user-friendly to new players" worked. It made 5e an overwhelming success. People bought the books, new players joined the hobby, people started streaming their D&D sessions online (with Critical Role being the one that kickstarted all of this) which further helped make D&D more popular, and D&D becoming mainstream again made it appear/be referenced in more TV shows and movies (Stranger Things, Community, Rick and Morty, the Magicians, et cetera), and this created even more of a feedback loop of "D&D becomes more mainstream, more players join the hobby, Wizards of the Coast gets even more money from 5e and continues to support the successful edition, making D&D more mainstream, and so on", which, over the course of the last 8 or so years has made D&D 5e's community be very different from how it was when it first came out.

The community isn't the same as it was when 5e came out and Wizards of the Coast isn't the same as when 5e came out. And this is a major reason for these changes. A different community and different ideas from Wizards of the Coast makes changes to the game like this inevitable and probably healthy for the game overall.

The community is large enough and D&D is successful enough that Wizards of the Coast can make these changes and have them largely be popular, when they likely would have been impossible to do many of these during D&D 4e (imagine if they tried to remove Racial ASIs during 4e, for example. That would have just added even more fuel to the Edition Wars, and there was already plenty).

 

[Mordhau]

The community is large enough and D&D is successful enough that Wizards of the Coast can make these changes and have them largely be popular, when they likely would have been impossible to do many of these during D&D 4e (imagine if they tried to remove Racial ASIs during 4e, for example. That would have just added even more fuel to the Edition Wars, and there was already plenty).

They didn't remove ASIs in 4e but they made them significantly more flexible mid edition, which meant it was interesting to see that they went back to the original fixed philosophy that they'd used as at the beginning of 4e when it came to 5th edition.

 

[JEB]

The community is large enough and D&D is successful enough that Wizards of the Coast can make these changes and have them largely be popular

As you say, they had a formula that worked with 2014 5E, appealing to both old and new players; now they're changing that formula to focus mainly on the new players, or at least on what they think new players want. (Not that they'll ever admit that; they obviously want as many people as possible to keep buying the books, so such an admission would be foolish.)

And this is the gamble. Are they making changes that truly appeal to the majority of the 5E community, setting the stage for continued success? Or are they setting the stage for a wave of "5E grognards" (as someone on Reddit put it) who decide to ignore new releases after a certain point, perhaps even seeking out alternatives? Time will tell.

Incidentally, I suspect a lot will actually depend less on the 5E player base as a whole, and more what 5E's DM population thinks of the new paradigm. You need DMs to run D&D games, and DMs that are done with modern 5E are likely to take some or all of their players with them...

 

[Mordhau]

From a business perspective, I don't think it's alienating the grognards that's the problem, it's splitting the fanbase, which in the past came whenver major changes were made to the games identity. Always before, the grognards were still such a large part of the fanbase that alienating them was a problem.

I'm not sure if that's the case any more. The percentage of players who played Ad&d when it was a live game must be getting pretty small (and of course, of those players, a large number of them will be perfectly fine with changes).

 

[JEB]

From a business perspective, I don't think it's alienating the grognards that's the problem, it's splitting the fanbase, which in the past came whenver major changes were made to the games identity. Always before, the grognards were still such a large part of the fanbase that alienating them was a problem.

I'm not sure if that's the case any more. The percentage of players who played Ad&d when it was a live game must be getting pretty small (and of course, of those players, a large number of them will be perfectly fine with changes).

To be clear, "5E grognards" would include people who started with 5E and are also turned off by the changes. Don't assume it'll just be veteran players who might decide they're good with 2014 5E or start looking at alternatives.