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

 

[Cadence]

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

Longer arms and legs?

 

[Hussar]

Longer arms and legs?

Then why can the strongest Dwarf swim just as well as the strongest Goliath?

See, the point I'm getting here is the simulation rabbit hole that people want to dive into just isn't remotely covered by D&D. The system just doesn't do that. And all this back and forth is just trying to pound square pegs into round holes. As soon as you spackle over one element, three more pop up.

Trying to tie "realism" into D&D stats is a fools errand and this thread has pretty clearly shown why.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

strongest Goliath must be stronger then strongest halfling, i think.

They are. Goliaths have Powerful Build (or, "Little Giant", as it's called in this book we're all discussing), Halflings don't.

The strongest Goliath is easily stronger than the strongest Halfling. They can lift/shove/push/carry twice as much as the Halfling can. Their Strength Score, like every other ability score in the game, is an abstraction.

They can carry more than a halfling. I don't know why so many people seem to think that "strong" has to mean "is better with a longsword", because it doesn't. There are many other ways to represent "Strength" in the rules besides just your Strength Score, just like there's different types of agility, fortitude, intelligence, perception, and charisma than their respective ability scores can represent (movement speeds/AC/Evasion/etc, damage reduction, skill/tool proficiencies, vision types/eyesight ranges, the Charm condition, and so on).

 

[Mordhau]

The linkage of Athletics to Strength and how that affects Goliaths has always been a part of their lore.

They're not just present as strong they're presented as incredibly competitive natural athletes who come from a harsh mountain environment. That's notable, because it's almost the sum total of the lore that they get.

 

[Cadence]

They can carry more than a halfling. I don't know why so many people seem to think that "strong" has to mean "is better with a longsword", because it doesn't.

Exactly, to hit has no business being with a stat called strength.

 

[Cadence]

Then why can the strongest Dwarf swim just as well as the strongest Goliath?

Rereading Dragon Lance for the first time in decades, should the question be "Why can dwarves swim at all?"

 

[billd91]

Exactly, to hit has no business being with a stat called strength.

I disagree, particularly in a game where armor/shield mechanics negate hits. A stronger attack should have a better chance of affecting the target than a weaker one. The two abstractions work well together.

 

[Mordhau]

The perception of Strength changes over time.

It used to be understood that you used Strength to overcome armour, not to actually land the blow, but in the 80s and 90s this often came to be seen as stupid. More modern systems were seen as using Strength for Damage and agility or dexterity to hit and using some kind of resistance mechanic for armour.

3e modernised a lot of things but it didn't modernise this, and it ended up being reinterpreted alongside the pop culture inspired re-understanding of Strength as being part of functional strength, and movement and agility without strength came to be seen as unrealistic too. After a while rather than D&D being the outlier among games in using Strength to hit, other cames started to copy it as well. (In part also because it started to be realised that Strength could be hard to justify as an attrbute generally).

I don't know where exactly where we are now. I guess, we're at the point where it's apparent that fidelity to a 50 year old game takes precedence over what makes sense in reality anyway and it's clear that if the game can't even admit that studded leather armour doesn't exist and doesn't make any sense then rethinking how attacks are made is probably a bridge too far.

 

[Hussar]

Just to pour some gasoline on the fire - loss of HP doesn't mean that you were actually hit harder by a greater strength. Loss of HP doesn't actually mean that you were hit at all.

 

[Cadence]

Just to pour some gasoline on the fire - loss of HP doesn't mean that you were actually hit harder by a greater strength. Loss of HP doesn't actually mean that you were hit at all.

We still don't have damage on a miss... yet... In D&D...do we? (Does 13th age?)