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]

Well, considering that in 40 years, I don't recall a single instance of the players trying to boil water, I'm somewhat failing to understand your point. Do your players regularly test "reality"? Given the abstract nature of virtually everything in the game, it would be a really weird thing to do.

I was under the impression some were claiming the game "wasn't designed to simulate anything or be realistic". So I can imagine all kinds of things the players might want to do in various situations. Do they need to ask about all of them as if they might not work? Or is it assumed that most things work like they do on earth unless called out otherwise?

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, how does boiling water work in your current campaign world, and how would your players know?

Characters who try to do it to make some annoying point about game mechanics that have nothing to do with boiling water die instantly of heretofore unknown congenital diseases.

 

[Cadence]

And yet it was played just fine even after those people gained gaming experience.

It's almost like it played well for some of them that way and didn't for others. (In one of the other threads it sounds like the majority who started with basic shifted to AD&D). Almost as if people are looking for different things in there games. For some, having a third grader out arm wrestle an offensive lineman works, and for others it doesn't. YMMV.

 

[Cadence]

Characters who try to do it to make some annoying point about game mechanics that have nothing to do with boiling water die instantly of heretofore unknown congenital diseases.

I'm guessing I was using hyperbole to make the point that most players probably assume that things in the game world work like they do here irl unless specified or implied otherwise by some mechanic or lore.

If there's a 5 year old on the street it would be pretty easy to grab them and carry them out of danger without them putting up much of a fight. If the bad guy is escaping on horseback the horse can't run full speed for long and they'll need water at some point. That torches leave a trail of smoke and the person carrying them will end up smelling as such. That pushing someone in full plate into the deep-end might be more than just an inconvenience to them. That heretofore unknown congenital diseases sometimes strike. etc...

Like, some versimilitude (if not a stab at realism even) greases the wheels of play.

 

[Azzy]

I don't understand how the fact that AD&D had ability scores minimums is relevant to the fact that basic D&D had them.

Then I can't really help you there.

Clearly they serve some kind of logic. Dwarves would get a Con bonus in AD&D but in Basic D&D they have a minimum. So the average would not be the same as no characters with Cons below 9 (not that unusual in Basic) would be Dwarves.

And, yet, since stats were determined by 3d6 and no modifiers, the average remains the same even if you trunicate the minimum.

But we need to consider how the whole package works. First halflings in basic are basically fighters, which is an outlier in the history of the game.

You can't call half the D&D like for most of the game's history an outlier and expect to be taken seriously.

AD&D pushed them into rogues and every edition since has basically followed suit.

See, that's a problem that would be corrected by no ASIs. Let's not push any race to be any specific class.

If you roll 18 Str

Talk about an outlier.

do you go human (Fighter) or Halfling? Well unless you also have a Dex of 13 you're encouraged to go human Fighter because the XP bonus is better. You are also limited to armour your size and smaller weapons (explicitly) which is a real impediment in Basic. In addition you get a +1 bonus to missile weapons which encourages a play style where you go more for ranged attacks.

Assuming you feel forced to create the most optimized character and not just, you know, play what you want. Or a dwarf, or an elf (if you have an 13+ INT, again assuming you care).

All of this means that in my experience, once again, due to the way the system works as a whole, the strongest characters in B/X are almost always going to be human fighters.

Or dwarves. And thankfully, the game is moving on from prescribing certain roles for certain races. That blows.

Again. What we need to consider here is not the theoretical scale in isolation but how the pieces work together to create a result.

I think better still, we should think about what facilitates more fun. Racial ASIs are just the last vestige of pushing players to play a certain after AS minimums/maximums, class limits, level limits, etc.

 

[Azzy]

It's almost like it played well for some of them that way and didn't for others. (In one of the other threads it sounds like the majority who started with basic shifted to AD&D). Almost as if people are looking for different things in there games. For some, having a third grader out arm wrestle an offensive lineman works, and for others it doesn't. YMMV.

Yeah, some "upgraded" to AD&D. How many did so for the sake of ASIs (really?) rather than just having more options?

 

[Mordhau]

Fair enough.

Now, in a 5e context, since there are no racial minimums, or maximums for that matter, no limits on race/class, no limits based on stats on levels, what pieces are working together here to create a result?

I went over that earlier in the thread. I pointed out that Powerful Build only really makes Goliaths the strongest character if they follow the other design elements of the class which lead them towards playing a Strength based character. Likewise Natural Athlete is most valuable if you have a good strength score.

In other words, race abilities to work with the ASI, in it's absence the whole package needs a rethink.

 

[Cadence]

And, yet, since stats were determined by 3d6 and no modifiers, the average remains the same even if you trunicate the minimum.

I feel like I'm misreading something. The Dwarves couldn't have a constitution below 9, and the other races could. Let Con=3d6. E(Con|Con>=9) surely feels bigger than E(Con).

 

[Mordhau]

Then I can't really help you there.

And, yet, since stats were determined by 3d6 and no modifiers, the average remains the same even if you trunicate the minimum.


You can't call half the D&D like for most of the game's history an outlier and expect to be taken seriously.


See, that's a problem that would be corrected by no ASIs. Let's not push any race to be any specific class.

Talk about an outlier.

Assuming you feel forced to create the most optimized character and not just, you know, play what you want. Or a dwarf, or an elf (if you have an 13+ INT, again assuming you care).

Or dwarves. And thankfully, the game is moving on from prescribing certain roles for certain races. That blows.

I think better still, we should think about what facilitates more fun. Racial ASIs are just the last vestige of pushing players to play a certain after AS minimums/maximums, class limits, level limits, etc.

I'm not going to do this whole thing where we exchange posts and spend ages breaking down the posts into minute chunks.

Especially as you are determined to push me into a simplistic camp. I have never argued that any race should be forced to be any class. I would suggest that you reflect on why you are determined to be so combative (and frankly determined to read everything I've said in the most uncharitable way you possibly can) and how this had led you to waste your time tilting at windmills.

My goal here is to think through the issues and have a better discussion and to think about how design could be better and how it has worked in the past.

 

[Mordhau]

Ok this I don't understand. If I point out that a system has certain optimal results that suggest certain outcomes people complain that it only applies to players who optimise.

But the whole issue of removing ASIs is also only necessary if players feel the need to optimise. If you don't care that you're Half-Orc doesn't have the optimal stat bonus for a Wizard, then nothing needed to be changed.

If the design didn't nudge people in certain directions, or it doesn't matter if it only applies to optimers, then what exactly was the case for change? Either the direction design nudges people matters or it doesn't.

Of course, it's not just optimising, it's also about easily identifiable synergies that make decision making easy, and in many cases match the art in books and the fluff as well. I think that's one of the main reason WotC held onto the design priorities they've had for so long. An absolutely flat list of options is not necessarily desirable for new players.

Of course people are right to see the design as impactful. Just look at this:

The most obvious synergies are overwhelmingly impactful. Half-Orc Fighters and Barbarians or Firbolg Druids absolutely dwarf the number of other classes for these races.