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

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I agree.

Some fans want to play off-kilter combinations like dwarf wizard without feeling they are underpowered. It not enough for the combination to be viable, they want the game to validate their choice by giving them access to the same ability score modifiers they would get if they picked a "wizardly" race like gnome or high elf. They want whatever combo they dream of to be as valid.

Some fans want the game to only validate the archetypes that have existed for 40 years by them optimal abilities while dissuading non-traditional options through non-optimization. A half-orc barbarian is validated by giving them optimal ability score adjustments, bonuses to survivability, and a classically barbarian bonus skill, while simultaneously enforcing that a half-orc wizard will get much less benefit from these features, which will cause players to stick to powerful familiar combinations at the expense of off-kilter ones.

Both sides want the rules to validate them. One side wants the rules to provide them with the tools to make their centaur storm sorcerer as powerful as any other sorcerer, while the other wants the rules to validate only the archetypes invented decades ago that centaurs make decent warriors and maybe druids, but not much else.

I think you are missing those of us that get a kick out of mixes that are cool but not optimal.

I don’t need validation either way. I like taking a path less traveled—-taking something rarer due to novelty. Not totally weakened per se just less often chosen.

i always liked half orc clerics and mountain dwarf rogues. And I like that some things are unexpected and paths less travelled. Playing against type is fun for me but of course is rapidly disappearing.

maybe you are right—-maybe I want archetypes validated so I can do the less common.

 

[Azzy]

Fans don't want compatability; they want validation. That's part of what makes fandoms toxic by nature.

This is why I hate fandoms so much. Sometimes I think it would be better to be a fan of something and just not engage with the fandumb that surrounds it—even if you miss the non-toxic and cool elements of the fandom in doing so. The toxicity just doesn't seem worth it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is why I hate fandoms so much. Sometimes I think it would be better to be a fan of something and just not engage with the fandumb that surrounds it—even if you miss the non-toxic and cool elements of the fandom in doing so. The toxicity just doesn't seem worth it.

Sadly, there's no way to know how many people quietly enjoy something since, you know, they're quiet.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You know, I was reading this thread, and I saw the same “size should equal strength, small races can’t be strong” argument. And then Crimson Longious posted that 3.5 chart of half orcs and humans and halflings, and an idea percolated in my head. And I don’t think this idea is going to revolutionize people’s thoughts, but… it wouldn’t go away.

See, we always have the discussion in terms of “races”, we always list which races we are talking about. But what happens to this “perfectly clear” set of examples if we… stopped talking about races. What if we literally just went by height?

So, I compiled a list. I wanted to pull from the PHB, Volo’s, Mordenkainen’s, and Eberron (Not counting Dragonmarks). All books published BEFORE Tasha’s. I also didn’t include Ravnica or Theros, because many people don’t seem to consider those “real dnd” settings. This list is solely a list of height and then “average”, “+5%” and “+10%” for the modifiers.

And you know what, lotta work, but I then made lists for dexterity and Constitution. Because I really wanted to highlight this. Will it change minds? Doubt it. But I wasn’t going to do all this work and NOT post it.

(I'm also 20 pages back, so don't expect any quick responses from me, and apologies if this ends up off-topic)

Spoiler: Strength List

2’1” -> Average
2’2” -> Average
2’3” -> Average
2’4” -> Average
2’5” -> Average
2’6” -> Average
2’7” -> Average
2’8” -> Average
2’9” -> Average
2’10” -> Average
2’11 -> Average
3’ -> Average
3’1” -> Average
3’2” -> Average
3’3” -> Average
3’4” -> Average
3’5” -> Average
3’6” -> Average
3’7” -> Average
3’8” -> Average
3’9” -> Average
3’10” -> Average
3’11” -> Average
4’ -> Average / +10%
4’1” -> Average / +10%
4’2” -> Average / +10%
4’3” -> Average / +10%
4’4” -> Average / +10%
4’5” -> Average / +10%
4’6” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’7” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’8” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’9” -> Average / +5%
4’10” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’11” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’ -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’1” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’2” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’3” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’4” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’5” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’6” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’7” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’8” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’9” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’10” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’11” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’ -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’1” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’2” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’3” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’4” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’5” -> Average / +5% /+10%
6’6” -> Average / +5% /+10%
6’7” -> +5% /+10%
6’8” -> +5% /+10%
6’9” -> +5% /+10%
6’10” -> +5% /+10%
6’11” -> +5% /+10%
7’ -> +5% / +10%
7’1” -> +5% / +10%
7’2” -> +5% / +10%
7’3” -> +5% / +10%
7’4” -> +5% / +10%
7’5” -> +5% / +10%
7’6” -> +5% / +10%
7’7” -> +5% / +10%
7’8” -> +5% / +10%
7’9” -> +5% / +10%
7’10” -> +5% / +10%
7’11” -> +5% / +10%
8’ -> +5%/ +10%
8’1” -> +5%
8’2” -> +5%

Spoiler: Con List

2’1” -> Average
2’2” -> Average
2’3” -> Average
2’4” -> Average
2’5” -> Average
2’6” -> Average
2’7” -> Average / +5%
2’8” -> Average / +5%
2’9” -> Average / +5%
2’10” -> Average / +5%
2’11 -> Average / +5%
3’ -> Average / +5%
3’1” -> Average / +5%
3’2” -> Average / +5%
3’3” -> Average / +5%
3’4” -> +5%
3’5” -> +5%
3’6” -> +5%
3’7” -> +5% / +10%
3’8” -> +5% / +10%
3’9” -> +5% / +10%
3’10” -> +5% / +10%
3’11” -> +5% / +10%
4’ -> +5% / +10%
4’1” -> +5% / +10%
4’2” -> +10%
4’3” ->+10%
4’4” -> Average / +10%
4’5” -> Average / +10%
4’6” -> Average /+5% / +10%
4’7” ->Average / +5% / +10%
4’8” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’9” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’10” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’11” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’ -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’1” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’2” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’3” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’4” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’5” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’6” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’7” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’8” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’9” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’10” -> Average /+5% / +10%
5’11” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’ -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’1” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’2” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’3” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’4” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’5” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’6” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’7” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’8” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’9” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’10” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’11” -> Average / +5% / +10%
7’ -> Average / +5% / +10%
7’1” -> Average / +5% / +10%
7’2” -> Average / +5% / +10%
7’3” ->Average / +5% /+10%
7’4” -> Average / +5% / +10%
7’5” -> Average / +5% / +10%
7’6” -> Average / +5% /+10%
7’7” ->Average / +5% / +10%
7’8” ->Average / +5% / +10%
7’9” -> Average / +5% / +10%
7’10” -> Average / +5% / +10%
7’11” -> Average / +5%
8’ ->Average / +5%
8’1” -> Average
8’2” -> Average

Spoiler: Dex List

2’1” -> +10%
2’2” -> +10%
2’3” -> +10%
2’4” -> +10%
2’5” -> +10%
2’6” -> +10%
2’7” -> +10%
2’8” -> +10%
2’9” -> +10%
2’10” -> +10%
2’11 -> +5% / +10%
3’ -> +5% / +10%
3’1” -> +5% / +10%
3’2” -> +5% / +10%
3’3” -> +5% / +10%
3’4” -> +5%
3’5” -> +5% / +10%
3’6” -> +5% / +10%
3’7” -> +5% / +10%
3’8” -> Average / +10%
3’9” -> Average / +10%
3’10” -> Average / +10%
3’11” -> Average / +10%
4’ -> Average / +10%
4’1” -> Average / +10%
4’2” -> Average
4’3” -> Average
4’4” -> Average / +10%
4’5” -> Average / +10%
4’6” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’7” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’8” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’9” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’10” -> Average / +5% / +10%
4’11” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’ -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’1” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’2” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’3” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’4” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’5” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’6” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’7” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’8” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’9” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’10” -> Average / +5% / +10%
5’11” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’ -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’1” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’2” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’3” -> Average / +5% /+10%
6’4” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’5” -> Average /+5% / +10%
6’6” -> Average / +5% / +10%
6’7” -> Average / +5%
6’8” -> Average / +5%
6’9” -> Average / +5%
6’10” -> Average / +5%
6’11” -> Average
7’ -> Average
7’1” -> Average
7’2” -> Average
7’3” ->Average
7’4” -> Average
7’5” -> Average
7’6” -> Average
7’7” ->Average
7’8” ->Average
7’9” -> Average
7’10” Average
7’11” -> Average
8’ ->Average
8’1” -> Average
8’2” -> Average

So, what does this show?

Spoiler: Some thoughts

Well, you can have an average Strength from 2ft 1 in until 6ft 6 inches, that is a range of four feet and five inches

+5% strength stretches from 4ft 6in until 8ft 2 in, a range of three ft and eight inches

+10 strength stretches from 4ft til 8ft, skipping 4’9”. That is a range of four ft, technically. Seems that being 4’9” is just a oddly weak size.

But, notice something strange? Between 4ft 6in and 6ft 6in, you can be any of the three. If I tell you my character is in that range, you cannot use that as a predictor. I could be as strong as that 2ft character or as strong as the 8ft character.

Constitution is really funky, Average Con? That is 2ft 1in until 3ft 3in then you SKIP to 4ft 4in and go aaaaall the way to 8ft 2in. So, total range is six foot one inch, but you have this twelve inch gap where you are just tougher than normal.

+5%? 2ft 7in until 4ft 1in… then we skip again until 4ft 6in and go all the way… to 8ft. So, this is really janky. The total range is five foot five inches, but you’ve got a four inch gap where you are either average or super tough, and if you go over eight foot… you are average.

+10% is the easiest. 3ft 7in to 7ft 10in, a range of four foot and three inches. But if you get too tall or too short… you aren’t that tough.

Our range where all values are present? 4’6” to 7’10”. Which covers a lot of the same range as the strength numbers.

And Dex just for completeness? Well, the Average starts at 3ft 8in and goes til 8ft 2in. Nice and solid, though it covers four foot eight inches of range.

But 5%? 2 ft 11in until 3ft 7in then skip to 4ft 6in and go til 6ft 10in. So, the total range is almost four feet, but there is a massive foot wide gap in the middle of it.

And 10%? 2ft 1in til 3ft 3in, skip only the notably awkward 3ft 4in, then continue until 4ft 1in, then skip again until 4ft 4in then go til 6ft 6in. So… this is a bit of a mess. Total range is four feet and five inches, but we’ve got random nonsensical hiccups where certain specific inches drop. Like, 4’1” is +10%, 4’2” is Average with a +0, as is 4’3” and then 4’4” you jump back up to being capable of 10%?

And where is our overlap? Between 4ft 6in and 6ft 6in. A two foot space.

And isn’t that just sort of strange? If you are between four and half and six and a half feet, you are “biologically” likely to have between a +0/+5%/+10% in Strength or Con or Dex. Your size in that range determines nothing much about your chances of having any particular physicality. And sure, the extreme ends tend to peter out a bit. Being below 4ft means you have an average strength, but that is only being 5% weaker than someone who is 8ft, who could very likely be 5% weaker than someone who is 4ft 2in.

So… is this really consistent or easy to follow? I don’t think so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Chaosmancer that seems to show that size correlates with strength, albeit very shallowly. Though of course height alone is not necessarily a good measure of size, dwarves and gnomes are built very differently.

In any case, I don't consider the way racial ASIs were originally done very good. I just consider it better than nothing. But I get that some people would just rather not bother with the whole thing than trying to improve a flawed system.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

So… is this really consistent or easy to follow? I don’t think so.

Indeed. Bring back a few negative modifiers and it will be more efficient to reflect what size<->stat relationship proponents want. A few inconsistencies will remain, that lore can take care of (dwarf being extremely resistant because of the association with stone and the "short and stout" descriptor for them).

 

[Azzy]

Indeed. Bring back a few negative modifiers

Or we go back even further and get rid of racial ASIs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

with Critical Role being the one that kickstarted all of this

Aquisitions Inc was filling halls and getting people into movie theaters to watch the game before Critical Role first aired. It may seem nitpicky, but IMO who actually “kickstarted” actual play shows is worth keeping in mind.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

I think a big thing that gets missed (other than the “apology” narrative being a bit…misguided IMO) in these discussions is that it wasn’t just 4e that 5e was fixing the issues of, it was 3/.5e too.

The fanbase had been significantly split since before wotc purchased the game, and they needed to fix that while making a game that your CharOp players, complex OC-builder players, and your “don’t make me answer a bunch of questions just let me play my beefy dwarf axman” players, at the same table.

The game wasn’t built simpler than anything since 2e just for new players. It’s never just been new players that like standard human champion fighters with no feats and options like it.

It’s worth remembering that 5e brought back people who never picked up 3e, as well.

 

[Cadence]

Back to thinking about strength and halflings vs. goliaths (as I'm out doing yard work and using it as an excuse to stop and come in and post).

If one were building a new edition of D&D and wanted to be clear on it, one of the questions is if strength is an absolute measure (proportional to amount they can carry) or if it is a per pound measure (so the score means different things for different sized folks).

An issue with being an absolute measure comes up in the climbing walls and to hit, for example are hard for a relatively strong and athletic halfling.
An issue with being per pound comes up in how much is carried and in added damage in that the relatively strong and athletic halfling does as much as the person 8+ times their volume.

Another thing I've just been wondering about, is whether being a straight plus on damage (instead of maybe being a die roll added) is also problematic for the absolute measure way of going. As an absolute measure, a giant should be + a bunch, and a huge dinosaur should be + tons. But that means even a bad damage roll from them is devastating.

Either adding in a strength die roll (18 strength adds d8 damage instead of +4) or upgrading the die type (d8 -> d10 -> 2d6 -> d6+d8 -> 2d8 -> etc...) means there's a chance of not getting completely annihilated if they connect. Is that a step too far? Not sure how a strength die would work with negatives, but downgrading dice would do it for the other way. (I assume there is some system out there that does that already).