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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You know "play as you want" is great advice until you realize that sword cuts BOTH ways... I like some of what I see as 5.5/6/annavsery edition but


no but I would expect respect when people disagree with the direction it is taking...

and how do they know what way will make more money if people shush people who disagree?

and that loss of money in the future may mean they have to readjust again... it might be helpful if people talked pro/con.

Read into it what you want.
But please answer: would it be a wise choice to just reprint 5e for aniversary?
Wouldn't it be seen as money grabbing?
So I expect some evolution (and I peronally am seeing evolution not revolution, but that's for discussion).

What I see here however is not voicing concerns but a lot of assumptions, that wotc is bending to the overwhelming negativity of social media and treating old people badly. I don't see it that way. I rather see it as listening to the current audience. And it is wotc's good right to do so.
5e is still valid and won't go away (and as it seems they even let you still have the old versions in DnD Beyond if you don't want to upgrade, and I hope it stays that way).

So I do respect the people who don't want that change. They don't have to anything or buy anything new. This edition is 10 years old when 5.5 arrives. That is a long time.

 

[HammerMan]

Read into it what you want.
But please answer: would it be a wise choice to just reprint 5e for aniversary?

no. I am firmly of the belief that best for us and best for WotC would be 6e with a lot of more modern ideas (like heritage instead of race) mixed with a lot of 5e inovations that have happened over last 8 years with a few throw backs to 2e and 4e.... but nobody pays me to make games so what do I know?

Wouldn't it be seen as money grabbing?

I am pretty sure everything hasbro does is a money grab... when we like it we just don't call them on it.

What I see here however is not voicing concerns but a lot of assumptions, that wotc is bending to the overwhelming negativity of social media and treating old people badly. I don't see it that way. I rather see it as listening to the current audience. And it is wotc's good right to do so.

first let me be clear... I am an old person. I am not yet ready to retire (who am I kidding I will die working and never retire unless I hit lotto) but I am over the hill. And I agree with alot of what 'social media and young' say. (not everything I pick and choose) but yes, throwing away the old to start over with the new is always a fear.

my personal fear is that when they stand in the middle of the road they are going to get hit from both sides... new enough to make the edition wars start, but throw backy enough to base 5e not to make revolutionary changes needed.

5e is still valid and won't go away (and as it seems they even let you still have the old versions in DnD Beyond if you don't want to upgrade, and I hope it stays that way).

So I do respect the people who don't want that change. They don't have to anything or buy anything new. This edition is 10 years old when 5.5 arrives. That is a long time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

no. I am firmly of the belief that best for us and best for WotC would be 6e with a lot of more modern ideas (like heritage instead of race) mixed with a lot of 5e inovations that have happened over last 8 years with a few throw backs to 2e and 4e.... but nobody pays me to make games so what do I know?

I do agree with everything you said and I really had no problems if they made 6e doing a bit more than what they are showing now. And keep old 5e intact for those who want that.

 

[Shardstone]

That's a little harsh. I admit I was overstating to say that they always wanted to do things the new way. But who says the game has been "crippled" for the last 6-7 years? That is very personal opinion. Also, there are plenty of long-time gamers who still buy their books even if they don't agree with current design philosophies.

Also, do you think its a coincidence that they decided to change their tune at the same time as social media started going after them? Just my opinion, but that seems pretty far-fetched to me.

It was harsh, but I was feeling dramatic earlier, and I must be allowed some manner of proclivities.

 

[HammerMan]

They designed it that way because the playtesters made them design it that way. But the playtesters are now but a fish in a much bigger pond, and WotC no longer cares about the archaic, nonsensical, and traditional ways of designing D&D. They realized they don't need to cripple the game to appease people who don't buy their books anymore anyhow.

god I hope you are right.

I fear that the same loud minority that said "no fighter maneuvers" are the same ones that said the variable psi die was to complex and the same ones that will hold back true progress.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If we are looking at what the newer player base might want, I think the game should be mechanically simplified, there should be less focus on combat and mechanics should be evocative and fun. Look at Crtitical Role, then think what sort of rules system would support that sort of game better.

 

[HammerMan]

If we are looking at what the newer player base might want, I think the game should be mechanically simplified, there should be less focus on combat and mechanics should be evocative and fun. Look at Crtitical Role, then think what sort of rules system would support that sort of game better.

I don't like watching/listening to others play (I do like it with video games since I can see the game/story without being good at it) so I doubt I would like Crit Role.

I do think every update has followed the same formula though (and one I agree with still) mechanically simplified, there should be less focus on combat and mechanics should be evocative and fun... I would add with more mechanics for out of combat abilities.

the only hickup of this progress was the step back from 4e to 5e that has some 4e in it but in many ways regressed to 3.5

edit: even though 4e is my favorite edition, I will say even 5e DID progress some on simple mechanics

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't like watching/listening to others play (I do like it with video games since I can see the game/story without being good at it) so I doubt I would like Crit Role.

What I was getting at, was a game that is more about stories, characters and fun occurrences and less about crunch and tactics.

I do think every update has followed the same formula though (and one I agree with still) mechanically simplified, there should be less focus on combat and mechanics should be evocative and fun... I would add with more mechanics for out of combat abilities.

the only hickup of this progress was the step back from 4e to 5e that has some 4e in it but in many ways regressed to 3.5

edit: even though 4e is my favorite edition, I will say even 5e DID progress some on simple mechanics

4e was hella mechanically heavy the the most combat focused of all the editions. And I would strongly argue that the rules were not evocative either, as to many people they come across as disassociated and dry. It is an edition loved by people who like crunchy tactical combat with a lot of choices (and for a good reason) but 5e definitely moved toward less combat heavy, more evocative and less crunchy from it. But perhaps not enough.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

What I was getting at, was a game that is more about stories, characters and fun occurrences and less about crunch and tactics.

I'm not saying this to be snarky. How much simpler can 5e get before it's dungeon world? 5e has already shown that it's current degree of complexity has been wildly successful at attracting new players.

Seeing things like "you get X bonus action PB times for day" really heartens me precisely because I love crunch and tactics - so much so that I'm not even playing 5e right now (PF2e instead) because of how lacking that is.

 

[HammerMan]

4e was hella mechanically heavy the the most combat focused of all the editions. And I would strongly argue that the rules were not evocative either, as to many people they come across as disassociated and dry. It is an edition loved by people who like crunchy tactical combat with a lot of choices (and for a good reason)

I will respectfully disagree and hope we can not side track this into an edition war. It had MORE out of combat support then 3.5 in my mind (although it did focus on tactile play so too did 3.5)

but 5e definitely moved toward less combat heavy, more evocative and less crunchy from it. But perhaps not enough.

maybe maybe not, but it did do away with the skill challenge that needed to be worked on, and we can see now slowly being worked on... if you have it strixhaven has a modified version (along with a great 'connections' section to go with it)