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

 

[Faolyn]

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).

I quite like these ideas, The first idea, however, is terribly unfair to Small races, or even most Medium races, unless they get something else to make up for it--or the Big races get a substantial penalty (which is also unfun, and most likely will feel arbitrary and punative).

For the second idea, upping the damage die, I can definitely see this with some weapons: I have a hard time seeing them do extra damage with a Light weapon, for instance, but can easily see them being devastating with a Heavy weapon or a versatile weapon held two-handed. This could easy be a racial trait done instead of some other trait. For goliaths, this could be in exchange for Stone's Endurance and/or Natural Athlete.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

These ideas are not unlike how Runequest does it (a die of extra damage depending on the strength and size) and, as in 3e IIRC, weapon size that acted as dice step modifier (ie, a dagger is 1d4, a Large dagger is 1d6, a Huge dagger is 1d8...)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

For the second idea, upping the damage die, I can definitely see this with some weapons: I have a hard time seeing them do extra damage with a Light weapon, for instance, but can easily see them being devastating with a Heavy weapon or a versatile weapon held two-handed.

Maybe with heavy weapons and versatile wielded with 2-hands, larger creatures could replace an attack roll on their turn with a Dex Saving throw instead? Like, their blows are so crushing that no armors can withstand their attacks, the target HAS to dodge out of the way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@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.

Having caught up, I feel a bit bad that I'm interrupting a winding down of the discussion, but I don't think I'm seeing this "shallow" correlation you are talking about.

Four and a half feet. Builds from 2ft to 6 and a half feet have the same +0 modifer to their strength. You say Gnomes and Dwarves are built differently? Well, that's fine, but so are Gnomes and Lizardfolk. And I can make a gnome who is 2ft and 35 lbs who has the same +0 mod to strength that a Lizardfolk who is 6 and a half ft and 360 lbs. That is over four feet taller and ten times the weight. Meanwhile, if I made an Orc who was 6 and half ft and 300 lbs... obviously he'd be strong right? 10% stronger than the Lizardfolk with an identical build.

That was the entire point of removing the discussion from races. To demonstrate that while people can say over and over and over again that we can't allow PCs who are a certain size to be as strong as larger PCs... we absolutely already do that. PCs from 2 ft until over 6 ft, from 30 lbs to over 300lbs, all have the same strength score. That is a wide vareity of builds. I would never say that someone who is 6ft 300 lbs has the same build as someone 3ft and 60 lbs, and yet, they have the same modifiers.

So why does it suddenly become a problem to allow a race who is 3ft to be as strong as a race who is 6 ft when they already are? How is it "better than nothing" if there was... nothing? How do you improve the system that already says that between 4ft and 6.5ft, 80 to 360 lbs, there is a complete crap shoot of whether or not you are stronger or weaker? Even if you start adding negative modifiers you aren't going to be able to change that fact. All you would be doing is adding another little section.

And remember, we have to consider all races. I didn't use them, but there are a lot of races now that can be small or large. So... do they get two seperate sets of ASI's? One for their small forms to make a "more accurate" system and one for their larger forms? That seems to be going in the wrong direction for me.

Especially when we start adding in conversations about Consitution. After all, you can't just add and subtract strength without considering the balance of the other 5 Ability Scores.

 

[Hussar]

Like most things in DnD, the simulation is really just the thinnest veneer and wilts under even the most casual scrutiny.

It always baffles me why people are so attached to something that is so obviously bad at what it’s supposed to be. I love simulationist games. I do. Huge fan in rpgs, board games and video games.

I would never even begin to put DnD in a list of sim games.

 

[Faolyn]

Maybe with heavy weapons and versatile wielded with 2-hands, larger creatures could replace an attack roll on their turn with a Dex Saving throw instead? Like, their blows are so crushing that no armors can withstand their attacks, the target HAS to dodge out of the way.

That sounds like it should be a Level Up maneuver, if it isn't one already.

 

[Mordhau]

Like most things in DnD, the simulation is really just the thinnest veneer and wilts under even the most casual scrutiny.

It always baffles me why people are so attached to something that is so obviously bad at what it’s supposed to be. I love simulationist games. I do. Huge fan in rpgs, board games and video games.

I would never even begin to put DnD in a list of sim games.

I don't think anyone believes that D&D is actually trying to be simulationist - but the original mechanics drive certain results that at least correspond broadly to what you would expect from sim.

If the system nudges Goliaths into strength based characters and halflings away from strength based characters than, in most cases, it gives a kind of sim like result - Goliaths will be usually be much stronger than halflings.

Of course that result comes at the expense of inflexibility.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't think anyone believes that D&D is actually trying to be simulationist - but the original mechanics drive certain results that at least correspond broadly to what you would expect from sim.

If the system nudges Goliaths into strength based characters and halflings away from strength based characters than, in most cases, it gives a kind of sim like result - Goliaths will be usually be much stronger than halflings.

Of course that result comes at the response of inflexibility.

That is a reasonable explanation and the best I have heard so far. And I do agree, that if that is the intend, you can absolutely do it with a little +2 bonus here or there.
But I think that is not the intend anymore and instead the game should be open for more variance.

 

[palikhov]

strongest Goliath must be stronger then strongest halfling, i think.
in general, i not like how important stats become.
I played in 2e fighter with 15 str, in 3e fighter with 13 str and 15 int.
but if i want to hit in 5e - my fighter must be strong...
not skilled fighter but strong fighter.

 

[Hussar]

strongest Goliath must be stronger then strongest halfling, i think.
in general, i not like how important stats become.
I played in 2e fighter with 15 str, in 3e fighter with 13 str and 15 int.
but if i want to hit in 5e - my fighter must be strong...
not skilled fighter but strong fighter.

But why must the strongest Goliath swim better than the strongest Halfling?

It's funny. I played AD&D (1e and 2e) for just about 20 years - several different groups, heck, two continents, and not once did I see a fighter with less than an 18 percentile strength.