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

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This shift in range is what ASIs simulate. It is a perfectly coherent concept.

Except it doesn't. That's my whole point. It DOES NOT do that. It makes ABSOLUTELY ALL characters of a given race have that trait. But that's ridiculous SPECIFICALLY for the reasons I've cited. NOT all members should have that trait. That's literally the point. Just as, even though real-world men are on average meaningfully stronger than real-world women, it is trivial to find men who are not just "not as strong as average woman" but comparable to the bottom end of female strength.

That's what I'm saying. You are simply, factually INCORRECT to say that this +2 whatever ACTUALLY represents the difference in central tendency. Because you SHOULD see basically the entire spectrum. That's the point. You SHOULD see Str 8 orcs sometimes. You SHOULD see Dex 8 elves sometimes. They should not be common, but the fact that they aren't common IS what "the average Orc has +2 Str" MEANS. It does not, and never has, meant that absolutely every orc has an innate +2 Str.

THAT is the gamist abstraction I am railing against. Because it DOES NOT conform to the way actual, living populations work. It elides the real, measurable behavior of actual populations for a gamist simplification, abstracting all "is an X" characters in the exact same way.

Averages represent what is likely. That's the whole point of central tendencies. They represent what is likely. They do not, and cannot, represent the spread of the data. That's not the function averages (of any kind--means, medians, whatever) DO. They literally do not perform that mathematical function.

 

[Mordhau]

Further, you're still on about STR. That seems to be the only stat you care about. Literally you have no arguments that don't involve STR. DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA can all go to hell, I guess? If your point was valid, you'd be able to argue it about any stat, but you can't. You can only even try to argue it about STR.

Not Crimson Longinus, but I tend to focus on Strength because it's the issue that bothers me the most. Charisma ought to be at least partly relative, while High Elves might traditionally have a bonus to Intelligence. there's no fictional depiction of them in D&D that really justifies this (If anything they should have a Charisma penalty based on their obviously unjustified sense of racial superiority.) Even halfling Dexterity, while traditional, doesn't really have much fictional justification (It's just there to direct them toward Rogues). But with Goliaths, being giantlike is basically the the point of them, and you can just look at the art for Goliaths and Minotaurs and Half-Orcs when placed against Halflings and see that one should be meaningfully stronger than the other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except it doesn't. That's my whole point. It DOES NOT do that. It makes ABSOLUTELY ALL characters of a given race have that trait. But that's ridiculous SPECIFICALLY for the reasons I've cited. NOT all members should have that trait. That's literally the point. Just as, even though real-world men are on average meaningfully stronger than real-world women, it is trivial to find men who are not just "not as strong as average woman" but comparable to the bottom end of female strength.

That's what I'm saying. You are simply, factually INCORRECT to say that this +2 whatever ACTUALLY represents the difference in central tendency. Because you SHOULD see basically the entire spectrum. That's the point. You SHOULD see Str 8 orcs sometimes. You SHOULD see Dex 8 elves sometimes. They should not be common, but the fact that they aren't common IS what "the average Orc has +2 Str" MEANS. It does not, and never has, meant that absolutely every orc has an innate +2 Str.

THAT is the gamist abstraction I am railing against. Because it DOES NOT conform to the way actual, living populations work. It elides the real, measurable behavior of actual populations for a gamist simplification, abstracting all "is an X" characters in the exact same way.

Averages represent what is likely. That's the whole point of central tendencies. They represent what is likely. They do not, and cannot, represent the spread of the data. That's not the function averages (of any kind--means, medians, whatever) DO. They literally do not perform that mathematical function.

We are not talking about humans, we are talking about literal different species with massively different sizes. Even a pathetically weak adult bear that is healthy enough to function at all is stronger than the weakest wolf. You can vary from the average, that is literally what the point buy/roll is for.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We are not talking about humans, we are talking about literal different species with massively different sizes. Even a pathetically weak adult bear that is healthy enough to function at all is stronger than the weakest wolf. You can vary from the average, that is literally what the point buy/roll is for.

You are using averages to represent what variance (or standard deviation/similar statistics) represent. That's not what that thing is for. Having a central tendency tells you nothing whatsoever about the variability of the population. You literally do not know whether the floor of dragonborn strength is lower, higher, or equal to that of humans--and no, I simply don't accept that being bigger alone is enough. Wolverines are strong enough to take on bears that are 4x or more their size. Size alone is no more a useful than averages for describing the variability of the data.

Edit:
And like...this is LITERALLY, right now, here in the real world, used for productive simulations. Simulations used to make actual scientific predictions. Having JUST the average tells you nothing. If you don't also have the error bars, or some other representation of the spread of the data/results, scientifically speaking you have nothing. Error bars without the value they center on are just as meaningless as central tendency values without their associated error bars.

 

[billd91]

Except it doesn't. That's my whole point. It DOES NOT do that. It makes ABSOLUTELY ALL characters of a given race have that trait. But that's ridiculous SPECIFICALLY for the reasons I've cited. NOT all members should have that trait. That's literally the point. Just as, even though real-world men are on average meaningfully stronger than real-world women, it is trivial to find men who are not just "not as strong as average woman" but comparable to the bottom end of female strength.

That's what I'm saying. You are simply, factually INCORRECT to say that this +2 whatever ACTUALLY represents the difference in central tendency. Because you SHOULD see basically the entire spectrum. That's the point. You SHOULD see Str 8 orcs sometimes. You SHOULD see Dex 8 elves sometimes. They should not be common, but the fact that they aren't common IS what "the average Orc has +2 Str" MEANS. It does not, and never has, meant that absolutely every orc has an innate +2 Str.

THAT is the gamist abstraction I am railing against. Because it DOES NOT conform to the way actual, living populations work. It elides the real, measurable behavior of actual populations for a gamist simplification, abstracting all "is an X" characters in the exact same way.

Averages represent what is likely. That's the whole point of central tendencies. They represent what is likely. They do not, and cannot, represent the spread of the data. That's not the function averages (of any kind--means, medians, whatever) DO. They literally do not perform that mathematical function.

It's a game so, yes, shifting the normal curve 2 points higher than the 3-18 baseline is something the game can define for a fictional creature.

 

[HammerMan]

That's literally the point. Just as, even though real-world men are on average meaningfully stronger than real-world women, it is trivial to find men who are not just "not as strong as average woman" but comparable to the bottom end of female strength.

can I just say not only does underestimating woman work for some today (I have plenty of friends both male and female who can lift and carry more than me) but it goes back to my parents... my mother was always tougher than my dad. They also (although not str related) used to run a scam with racing cars in the 60's where my dad would brag, get a guy to bet he could beat him... then say "Dude, my girlfriend can beat you in a race" and my mom was the better driver so they used to make money doing this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's a game so, yes, shifting the normal curve 2 points higher than the 3-18 baseline is something the game can define for a fictional creature.

Crimson Longinus has, to the best of my knowledge, expressly rejected using such logic, because it is gamist. If you agree that this is a gamist choice, an abstraction that goes against the effort to represent things with concrete reality within the fictional world in order to make gameplay simpler or easier, then you have granted one of the two conclusions I was driving for, and I won't belabor the point.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You are using averages to represent what variance (or standard deviation/similar statistics) represent. That's not what that thing is for. Having a central tendency tells you nothing whatsoever about the variability of the population. You literally do not know whether the floor of dragonborn strength is lower, higher, or equal to that of humans--and no, I simply don't accept that being bigger alone is enough. Wolverines are strong enough to take on bears that are 4x or more their size. Size alone is no more a useful than averages for describing the variability of the data.

Edit:
And like...this is LITERALLY, right now, here in the real world, used for productive simulations. Simulations used to make actual scientific predictions. Having JUST the average tells you nothing. If you don't also have the error bars, or some other representation of the spread of the data/results, scientifically speaking you have nothing. Error bars without the value they center on are just as meaningless as central tendency values without their associated error bars.

Those wolverines are not nearly as strong as those bears. They might able to fight them, but not due equal strength. No mammal has pound for pound four times the strength of another; muscles simply don't work like that. The famed chimp strength is only 1.5 times that of humans.

And we do not have just the average. It is you who brought it up. We have floor and maximum too, which can be calculated with the ASI. Sure, there is a weirdness caused by gamist an unrealistic ultimate cap of 20, but if we adjust that too by the ASI, things make sense well enough.

And sure, we could assign every species bespoke floor and cap for every stat separately, and I wouldn't oppose that.* But it probably is not worth it, as the standard deviation shifted by ASI works well enough.

* (In fact, that's close to how my house rules work, though things are just divided to three categories.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Those wolverines are not nearly as strong as those bears. They might able to fight them, but not due equal strength. No mammal has pound for pound four times the strength of another; muscles simply don't work like that. The famed chimp strength is only 1.5 times that of humans.

And we do not have just the average. It is you who brought it up. We have floor and maximum too, which can be calculated with the ASI. Sure, there is a weirdness caused by gamist an unrealistic ultimate cap of 20, but if we adjust that too by the ASI, things make sense well enough.

And sure, we could assign every species bespoke floor and cap for every stat separately, and I wouldn't oppose that.* But it probably is not worth it, as the standard deviation shifted by ASI works well enough.

* (In fact, that's close to how my house rules work, though things are just divided to three categories.)

The actual floor is whatever your generation method is. The actual ceiling is 20, as explicitly defined in the rules.

You are creating the very thing you claim to be justifying your position. It's completely circular.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Crimson Longinus has, to the best of my knowledge, expressly rejected using such logic, because it is gamist. If you agree that this is a gamist choice, an abstraction that goes against the effort to represent things with concrete reality within the fictional world in order to make gameplay simpler or easier, then you have granted one of the two conclusions I was driving for, and I won't belabor the point.

You're conflating simulation with insanely detailed and unpractical simulation. You always need some simplification and abstraction to have a functioning game. "These things are big and strong in the fiction, so they get bonus to the score that measures physical strength in the game" is a simulation.