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

 

[Remathilis]

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

The problem with D&D combat is that at it's heart it's disassociated. A character rolling "to hit" against an opponent"s "AC" and doing "damage" to it's"HP" has no defined in game correlation to the narrative. It's the source of all of D&D's idiosyncratic issues like being repeatedly stabbed but acting just fine until you drop unconscious, or people wrapped head to toe in metal being harder to hit. Combat it's so abstract that the individual rules don't define anything, allowing for multiple correct interpretations of what the game mechanics bear out.

Plenty of games have tried to tie mechanics to actual narrative elements. It's the birth of things like dodge rolls, wound mechanics, armor soak, etc. None of those would work in D&D. D&D is firmly rooted in that meta-game type of combat which is both liberating and frustrating to narrate.

 

[Azzy]

None of those would work in D&D. D&D is firmly rooted in that meta-game type of combat which is both liberating and frustrating to narrate.

Can't disagree here. That's why it's best not to think too deeply about D&D's game mechanics and just roll with it. Which, by the by, is why I think that the whole argument that certain races need to have racial ASIs to be more "x" than another race to be silly on the face of it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Can't disagree here. That's why it's best not to think too deeply about D&D's game mechanics and just roll with it. Which, by the by, is why I think that the whole argument that certain races need to have racial ASIs to be more "x" than another race to be silly on the face of it.

I have to say that D&D 5e is pretty much on the edge of my disassociation tolerance, and when I run it, I try to make the associations stronger, and I most definitely do not want to weaken them one bit. "This already makes very little sense so it doesn't matter if it makes even less sense" simply doesn't work for me at all. When mechanics completely lose their representativeness, I lose the interest to the mechanics. YMMV and all that.

 

[Cadence]

The problem with D&D combat is that at it's heart it's disassociated. A character rolling "to hit" against an opponent"s "AC" and doing "damage" to it's"HP" has no defined in game correlation to the narrative. It's the source of all of D&D's idiosyncratic issues like being repeatedly stabbed but acting just fine until you drop unconscious, or people wrapped head to toe in metal being harder to hit. Combat it's so abstract that the individual rules don't define anything, allowing for multiple correct interpretations of what the game mechanics bear out.

Plenty of games have tried to tie mechanics to actual narrative elements. It's the birth of things like dodge rolls, wound mechanics, armor soak, etc. None of those would work in D&D. D&D is firmly rooted in that meta-game type of combat which is both liberating and frustrating to narrate.

Is it that far off? (Ignoring balance among stats and not getting to hit points), how does it work if all weapons are finesse and ac is described as deflection?

 

[Mordhau]

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

Yes. And in fact it standardised it; almost every attack does your level in damage on a miss.

Although it was the first thing I dropped. (Not because I dislike miss damage but because the numbers are too small to be worth tracking).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is it that far off? (Ignoring balance among stats and not getting to hit points), how does it work if all weapons are finesse and ac is described as deflection?

I think you could pretty easily replace AC with "Defence Value" or some such, that would represent dodging/parrying (derived from your dex, and perhaps proficiency somehow.) Then you would attack (with dex and proficiency, probably) against that. Strength would add to the damage and armour would provide damage reduction*. I don't think it would be particular impossible to make to work, but it probably wouldn't feel like D&D to many people and would require one more mental step due the damage reduction.

*And as funny dice are a D&D thing, you could make the armour DR to be a die (leather DR d4, plate DR d12 etc) This would prevent plate wearers being completely immune to small weapons, which is a common issue (or a feature) of DR systems.

I think it could be fun, but probably not worth the hassle.

 

[Azzy]

I have to say that D&D 5e is pretty much on the edge of my disassociation tolerance, and when I run it, I try to make the associations stronger, and I most definitely do not want to weaken them one bit. "This already makes very little sense so it doesn't matter if it makes even less sense" simply doesn't work for me at all. When mechanics completely lose their representativeness, I lose the interest to the mechanics. YMMV and all that.

Man, I guess OD&D and the entire "basic" D&D line would gut you as they never had ASIs in the first place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Man, I guess OD&D and the entire "basic" D&D line would gut you as they never had ASIs in the first place.

Yes, probably. I've played most editions a bit but I wouldn't really consider myself a long time D&D fan. I've always had issues with how it handles things. 5e is easily the best edition, and first I'd call a genuinely good game that I like*. Though it too obviously has its flaws.

(Though you could argue that Basic's "race as class" is the ultimate HC mode of species differentiation, but I don't feel the really did anything particularly interesting with it. The demi-human mechanics really weren't built to evoke their non-human nature.)

(*4e is a good game that I still don't particularly like.)

 

[Cadence]

Man, I guess OD&D and the entire "basic" D&D line would gut you as they never had ASIs in the first place.

I mean, OD&D essentially was a bunch of partial rules scattered across a stack of books where you needed someone to teach you to play. Basic gave the prime requisite xp bonus, minimum score for halflings, dwarves, and elves, level limits, and as @Crimson Longinus notes they had race as class.

I hadn't looked at the basic requirements for those races in ages.

Dwarf - Min Con 9. Str 13+ gives bonus on XP.

Elf - Min Int 9. Str and Int 13+ gives 5%, Str 13 and Int 16 gives 10%.

Halfling - Min Dex 9 and Con 9. Str or Dex 13+ gives 5%, Str and Dex 13+ gives 10%.

So the requirement is "based on race" and the bonuses are "based on class"?

 

[Azzy]

I mean, OD&D essentially was a bunch of partial rules scattered across a stack of books where you needed someone to teach you to play. Basic gave the prime requisite xp bonus, minimum score for halflings, dwarves, and elves, level limits, and as @Crimson Longinus notes they had race as class.

I hadn't looked at the basic requirements for those races in ages.

Dwarf - Min Con 9. Str 13+ gives bonus on XP.

Elf - Min Int 9. Str and Int 13+ gives 5%, Str 13 and Int 16 gives 10%.

Halfling - Min Dex 9 and Con 9. Str or Dex 13+ gives 5%, Str and Dex 13+ gives 10%.

So the requirement is "based on race" and the bonuses are "based on class"?

Let's ignore prime requisite score minimum to give an XP bonus, because all classes had that. As far as minimum prime requisites, while humans didn't technically have a minimum, they were instead penalized (XP penalty) for prime requisites below 9.

If we were to infer that these class prime requisite minimums speak anything to the fiction of the race (in terms of ability), what we take away is that halflings are as tough (CON) as dwarfs, more agile (DEX) than elves and as strong (STR) as humans, dwarves, and elves. Elves were not terribly agile, but were smarter (INT) than everyone else. And humans can take on roles for which they absolutely suck at, unlike other races.