log in or register to remove this ad

 

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.

greg-rutkowski-monsters-of-the-multiverse-1920.jpg

  • Aarackocra
  • Assimar
  • Bugbear
  • Centaur
  • Changeling
  • Deep Gnome
  • Duergar
  • Eladrin
  • Fairy
  • Firbolg
  • Genasi, Air
  • Genasi, Earth
  • Genasi, Fire
  • Gennasi, Water
  • Githyanki
  • Githzerai
  • Goblin
  • Goliath
  • Harengon
  • Hobgoblin
  • Kenku
  • Kobold
  • Lizardfolk
  • Minotaur
  • Orc
  • Satyr
  • Sea Elf
  • Shadar Kai
  • Shifter
  • Tabaxi
  • Turtle
  • Triton
  • Yuan-ti

While reprinted, these races have all been updated to the current standard used by WotC for D&D races used in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, including a free choice of ability score increases (increase one by 2 points and another by 1 point; or increase three by 1 point), and small races not suffering a movement speed penalty.

The video below from Nerd Immersion delves into the races in more detail.

 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Nah, I couldnt be bothered to go into the (many) locked threads where people have be called racists and misogynists' by people now banned, because they dont have a problem with negative modifiers, or dont believe Halflings should be able to get that sweet +2 to Str at creation.

It shouldnt take you long if you really are interested.
I’ve been in or read all of them. No one was called racist, though a few folks cried wolf or got defensive about discussions of essentialism, and one guy got real weird about @Hurin88 ‘s username and another guy implied that me being knowledgeable about white supremacist linguistic and symbolic cyphers was an indication that I “live in the wrong places” or that I am somehow doing something wrong with my life. 😂
The post below says using ASIs is "racist essentialism". Is that close enough? I wouldn't be surprised if there are posts in that or similar threads where someone defending them is personally being implied or said to be a racist after a back and forth that may have pulled in other things. I'm not going back through some of the threads to find them (googling ASI essentialism enworld would give a start). I'm not sure it's worth working that hard to get this thread locked.

Oof. Nah. That absolutely is not an example of someone being called a racist for liking racial mechanics.

I’ve spoken in favor of racial ASIs in nearly every thread on the subject, while also defending those who dislike them, so it’s not like I just didn’t notice. I know exactly which exchanges you’re referring to, and they don’t fit the bill.
 

HammerMan

Legend
The thing is, you're not playing "a race." You're playing an individual of a race. It may very well be that elves don't make good barbarians and halflings don't make good wizards (or whatever). But that doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that your PC is mechanically limited. It also doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that I as a DM can't decide that in this world, elves are a barbaric people and halflings are accomplished magic-users.
yeah stories are full of "that one dwarven wizard" or "The really strong halfling fighter" we don't need all members of any race to be flexable we need PCs to be.

I doubt many (maybe none) people would be mad with "Most elves are more dexterous and more wise than Most humans but not as healthy" or "Most half orcs are ugly" or "Most dwarves do not have a talent for magic" or even going off race and to sex "Most men have more upper body strength than most woman"
We just don't want forced stat deploment or penelties when PCs play them.

"My clumsy kinda dense elven barbarian" and "My sexy half orc bard" and "My dwarven mage" all need to be as good as any other character at the table (or could be at the table)

Jen's Halfing woman with a 20str doesn't disprove that "Most halfings are weaker than humans and mist men have more upper body strength than men" If just says "This PC is well beyond sterotypes"
 





doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
no, the amount you spend on RPGs as an adult (both time and money) mean there is something wrong with your life... but we all are in that glass house together so I am putting down the stones ;) :unsure::ROFLMAO:
Hah don’t remind me!

The one nice thing about a small apartment and disliking clutter is that there isn’t room for more minis or to get into terrain, at least!
 


Remathilis

Legend
Leonin are in an official 5e book by WotC. It feels like that makes them a D&D race to me.
My point is that leonin aren't going to be seen outside the MTG settings while tabaxi are going to be in settings like Eberron or Forgotten Realms. Similar to how warforged are a race in 5e but limited to Eberron unless the DM says otherwise. Leonin can live comfortably as the MTG settings cat race with no other differential from tabaxi.
 

HammerMan

Legend
And I played a SW d20 Jedi class in a Pathfinder game. Your point?
of all the complaints I have about WotC D&D, of all the things I think went wrong, the creating of a unifying D20 system that allows for such things with some minor tweeks is the best/worst thing that ever happened and I love it...

and for all of my praise of 4e (my favorite edition) the lack of opening to 3rd party and lack of modern and sci fi setting/inprints is the worst part of it.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I’ve been in or read all of them. No one was called racist, though a few folks cried wolf or got defensive about discussions of essentialism, and one guy got real weird about @Hurin88 ‘s username and another guy implied that me being knowledgeable about white supremacist linguistic and symbolic cyphers was an indication that I “live in the wrong places” or that I am somehow doing something wrong with my life. 😂

Oof. Nah. That absolutely is not an example of someone being called a racist for liking racial mechanics.

I’ve spoken in favor of racial ASIs in nearly every thread on the subject, while also defending those who dislike them, so it’s not like I just didn’t notice. I know exactly which exchanges you’re referring to, and they don’t fit the bill.

Maybe it was having ASIs in culture I was thinking of?

 

Li Shenron

Legend
That leads to a bigger question: should every race be equally good at every class? Not just capable, but equally effective? I've never thought so, and historically they haven't been, but it sure seems like that's what people want now, and WotC is catering to that desire. Small wonder then that the aesthetics of race are eclipsing the mechanics.
Every edition starts with different races having different capabilities. Then after a while people starts asking for removing differences, maybe some of them get bored with playing/seeing the same stereotypes too often, but I also think for many is just due to too much theorycrafting and powergaming.

For example, ability scores modifiers are IMHO overrated. You don't need to maximise your primary score to be effective. Your "effectiveness" in the game depends on many factors, first and foremost how good of a player YOU are. But there is a number of gamers who insist that not having that +2 bonus is a limitation, and it is those players which at every edition push towards changing the rules to flatten the options so that they can maximise more.

What is really appalling is WotC designers not realizing that the maximisers' desires can be easily satisfied without homogenizing the game for everyone else: don't change the races but add a "nuke option" like the one in Tasha to put the bonus where you want.

Beyond ability scores, they could do the same for everything else. Does it bother you that race X gets that juicy feature but you want to play race Y? Add an optional rule that allows the maximiser to pick whatever they want, but don't remove that feature of race X for everyone else!

The thing is, you're not playing "a race." You're playing an individual of a race. It may very well be that elves don't make good barbarians and halflings don't make good wizards (or whatever). But that doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that your PC is mechanically limited. It also doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that I as a DM can't decide that in this world, elves are a barbaric people and halflings are accomplished magic-users.

Again if you have an option in the DMG or wherever that says "your DM can let you play a character of race X but use the stats of race Y", or even a more granular "your DM can let you cherrypick racial features according to this point-buy table" then everyone stops complaining because any real or imaginary mechanical limitation is gone, without removing what makes default races distinct from each other for those who don't feel limited by them.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
My point is that leonin aren't going to be seen outside the MTG settings while tabaxi are going to be in settings like Eberron or Forgotten Realms. Similar to how warforged are a race in 5e but limited to Eberron unless the DM says otherwise. Leonin can live comfortably as the MTG settings cat race with no other differential from tabaxi.
Their original intention was to use Tabaxi in Theros, but the ASI didn't match the Leonin flavor wise. That may have been Parr of the impetus for the Tasha changes: now a Tabaxi can be a strong Lion type, or Garfield.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Their original intention was to use Tabaxi in Theros, but the ASI didn't match the Leonin flavor wise. That may have been Parr of the impetus for the Tasha changes: now a Tabaxi can be a strong Lion type, or Garfield.

Hm, I was going to make a post about the difference between Leonin and Catfolk in MtG and how MtG Catfolk might be DnD Tabaxi, but then we end up with this:

.1642172860727.png
 

HammerMan

Legend
Every edition starts with different races having different capabilities. Then after a while people starts asking for removing differences, maybe some of them get bored with playing/seeing the same stereotypes too often, but I also think for many is just due to too much theorycrafting and powergaming.
was that always true? I was too new to know in 1e, I don;t remember (unless you count skills and power build your own race/class) it happening in 2e or 3e?
For example, ability scores modifiers are IMHO overrated. You don't need to maximise your primary score to be effective. Your "effectiveness" in the game depends on many factors, first and foremost how good of a player YOU are. But there is a number of gamers who insist that not having that +2 bonus is a limitation, and it is those players which at every edition push towards changing the rules to flatten the options so that they can maximise more.
yes and no and I am going to break this up a bit so bare with me.
with bounded accuracy (that I think went to far but that is another discusion) every +1 to hit or save DC is a HUGE boon.

if you run the same adventure (same monsters, automate PC choices) with a fighter with a 15 str, one with a 17 str and one with a 20 str you will find hands down that the higher str does better. Not in any 1 fight per say but over all. The same can be said with a 12 con 14 con and 16 con (and if you link them a 15 str 12 con fighter will do WAY worse than a 20str 16 con fighter)

now having say a 15 Int and 16 cha is nice, and may in corner situations help, 7 out of 10 times a 15 str 12 con 15 int 16 cha fighter will do worse in any given adventure (maybe outside of the two new ones that I hear are VERY combat light) then a 17 str 14 con 8 int 12 cha fighter will.

and it only gets worse as you mix and match... if you build 4 pcs (fighter, Mage, Cleric, Theif) as
Level 3 champion fighter (str based melee) with 15 str 10 dex 12 con 15 Int 14 Wis 16 cha
Level 3 diviner wizard with 12 str 16 dex 14 con 15 int 10 wis 15 cha
level 3 cleric of light with 12 str 16 dex 14 con 16 int 15 wis 14 cha
Level 3 theif rogue with 10 str 15 dex 12 con 15 Int 16 Wis 14 cha

then run the same adventure with
Level 3 champion fighter (str based melee) with 16 str 10 dex 14 con 8 Int 12 Wis 11 cha
Level 3 diviner wizard with 8 str 12 dex 14 con 16 int 14 wis 11 cha
level 3 cleric of light with 12 str 16 dex 14 con 16 int 16 wis 14 cha
Level 3 theif rogue with 10 str 16 dex 13 con 8 Int 12 Wis 15 cha

even though the 2nd set have over all lower stats the +1 to prime makes them run it better.

in and of itself it is most likely not a HUGE diffrence, but it is one.
However each optimal/inoptimal choice compounds on it.

but remembrer I said I wanted to break this up:
the game depends on many factors, first and foremost how good of a player YOU are.
that is a HUGE issue. I (and many that agree with me) want the game to be about IN GAME skill not out of game skill as much as possible.
Beyond ability scores, they could do the same for everything else. Does it bother you that race X gets that juicy feature but you want to play race Y? Add an optional rule that allows the maximiser to pick whatever they want, but don't remove that feature of race X for everyone else!
sometimes. I often think "man I want to play an X fighter, but a Y fighter has a better ability.
I personally follow the "no three bad choices" and "no three optimal choices" path when I make PCs

when I make a character I come up with concept and personality and story as my first 3 ideas... then I go to work making the stats work What do I mean by no 3 though? well I will find an optimized idea that will work and a bad unoptimal idea that will work and make the two work somehow togather with the concept personality and story. then I flesh out details, but I am careful not to take more than 2 bad or 2 good choices after that so I don't bring the group down or over run anyone.

Example: My warlock that made it to over 20th level I started with a Maxed out Cha and some powerful spells... but I didn't take eldritch blast and I took a lower con and even put myself in melee by taking the magic adept feat for druid and taking the sheielighyl cantrip.
Again if you have an option in the DMG or wherever that says "your DM can let you play a character of race X but use the stats of race Y", or even a more granular "your DM can let you cherrypick racial features according to this point-buy table" then everyone stops complaining because any real or imaginary mechanical limitation is gone, without removing what makes default races distinct from each other for those who don't feel limited by them.
I have been pushing for a more point buy/ granular custom race option since tasha's came out.

I would love to play a character with no stat mods, a bonus cantrip (from high elf even if you add the restriction of no damage ones) and the halfing lucky ability that is a short race (so no heavy weapons and I will even take the 25 move) with a long life time and at 5th level a spell like ability...
 



Li Shenron

Legend
was that always true? I was too new to know in 1e, I don;t remember (unless you count skills and power build your own race/class) it happening in 2e or 3e?
Honestly I can't speak for anything before 3e, so consider what I said relevant from 3e onward.
yes and no and I am going to break this up a bit so bare with me.
Sorry, I am not going to read your analysis.
that is a HUGE issue. I (and many that agree with me) want the game to be about IN GAME skill not out of game skill as much as possible.
If that's true, then we have nothing to say to each other because we're way too far. I do not see any point in spending time in a game that plays itself.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Their original intention was to use Tabaxi in Theros, but the ASI didn't match the Leonin flavor wise. That may have been Parr of the impetus for the Tasha changes: now a Tabaxi can be a strong Lion type, or Garfield.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the next MTG book just does the Triton/Merfolk thing and leonin no longer has separate stats from the nu-tabaxi.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top