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
• Harengon
• Hobgoblin
• Kenku
• Kobold
• Lizardfolk
• Minotaur
• Orc
• Satyr
• Sea Elf
• Shadar Kai
• Shifter
• Tabaxi
• Turtle
• Triton
• Yuan-ti

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

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.

 

[JEB]

I'm willing to bet that that the 50Ae PHB will provide brief multiple examples of culture for each race instead of having the races exist as monocultures by default.

I hope you're right. But from what we've seen of the character race updates so far, I'm not optimistic.

 

[JEB]

Really? Sell me a world. Sell me a history. Sell me adventure hooks steeped in lore that is consistent, researched, and deep.

I'll take a cool fake mythology over a 'real' mythology pretty much any day of the week, if the creator actually put some effort and love into it.

I'm kind a the opposite.

I look at all the books as bits and pieces in a toolkit to build my campaign setting. I might use some "standard" lore. Might not.

We (our group) find a lot of arguments about things go away if you look at the books as a selection of things to choose, not all of them will be in the same campaign.

The beauty of having suggested lore is that you get to have both of the above.

 

[Malmuria]

The beauty of having suggested lore is that you get to have both of the above.

For me, reading wotc lore (like in Motf or volos) involves trying to pick out the 2 or 3 interesting bits from a mountain mostly bland, ungameable content that is poorly laid out. It's not a good use of my time or energy, and that's a real drawback.

 

[JEB]

For me, reading wotc lore (like in Motf or volos) involves trying to pick out the 2 or 3 interesting bits from a mountain mostly bland, ungameable content that is poorly laid out. It's not a good use of my time or energy, and that's a real drawback.

Sorry to hear that. Though it sounds like your issue would be solved by different lore, not less or minimal lore.

Me, I find a lot of the WotC lore inspirational and useful. Even the stuff I don't use (gnolls) can give me anti-ideas or subversions.

 

[guachi]

I'd like racial lore that is full of suggestions rather than something written like it's the new default. Like the thread I started a few days ago titled Make Your Dwarves More Interesting. There is stuff in there that is obviously mutually exclusive but it all looks Dwarvish to me. It's a Dwarven toolbox a DM can pick and choose from and maybe be inspired to make up new things. Maybe even hand it to a player and let him be inspired. "Hey, player-dude, here's a book with six different takes on cat people. See if anything sparks your interest".

Give me something I can use in my own game that I haven't thought of before.

 

[Malmuria]

Sorry to hear that. Though it sounds like your issue would be solved by different lore, not less or minimal lore.

Me, I find a lot of the WotC lore inspirational and useful. Even the stuff I don't use (gnolls) can give me anti-ideas or subversions.

Ultraviolet Grasslands is an example for me of a book that has a lot of lore/information, but maximizes usefulness at the table. This is because the lore is embeded into locations, items, npcs, random tables. Wotc books tends to present lore like the writer is giving you a plot summary of a banal fantasy novel you didn't read.

Probably a difficulty that wotc writers face is having to deal with 50 years worth of lore baggage whenever they describe something.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

For me, reading wotc lore (like in Motf or volos) involves trying to pick out the 2 or 3 interesting bits from a mountain mostly bland, ungameable content that is poorly laid out. It's not a good use of my time or energy, and that's a real drawback.

You just perfectly highlighted why I despise the Forgotten Realms. There's good lore, yes, but way more just random junk that I could never use, and a ton of absolutely awful lore that gets in the way of the good stuff (does the setting really need hundreds of gods and around a dozen different pantheons?).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'd like racial lore that is full of suggestions rather than something written like it's the new default. Like the thread I started a few days ago titled Make Your Dwarves More Interesting. There is stuff in there that is obviously mutually exclusive but it all looks Dwarvish to me. It's a Dwarven toolbox a DM can pick and choose from and maybe be inspired to make up new things. Maybe even hand it to a player and let him be inspired. "Hey, player-dude, here's a book with six different takes on cat people. See if anything sparks your interest".

Give me something I can use in my own game that I haven't thought of before.

This is why I love Fizban's. It has a ton of lore, a bunch of it self-contradictory (how dragons are born has a huge table with a bunch of options that are mostly mutually exclusive, for example), but almost all of it is useful and great to draw inspiration from.

I like my lore-books to be a grab-bag, where it has a ton of options and things to draw inspiration from, and I can just pick and choose what I want. The same thing applies to settings, too (Eberron has a ton of different possible solutions to who caused the Mourning, where Warforged souls come from, and similar in-setting problems/questions. The DM just has to choose the answers, and make the setting theirs).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

does the setting really need hundreds of gods and around a dozen different pantheons?).

Yes.

 

[Malmuria]

This is why I love Fizban's. It has a ton of lore, a bunch of it self-contradictory (how dragons are born has a huge table with a bunch of options that are mostly mutually exclusive, for example), but almost all of it is useful and great to draw inspiration from.

I like my lore-books to be a grab-bag, where it has a ton of options and things to draw inspiration from, and I can just pick and choose what I want. The same thing applies to settings, too (Eberron has a ton of different possible solutions to who caused the Mourning, where Warforged souls come from, and similar in-setting problems/questions. The DM just has to choose the answers, and make the setting theirs).

Yeah maybe that's the trick--the book should be written and organized assuming that the reader wants options to pick and choose and won't be using all of it. I don't mean the idea that you can do whatever you want; that's assumed. I mean things like random tables and concise but evocative descriptions. For every bit of lore you introduce, pull out for the reader ways for it to become active at the table. Whereas wotc presents its lore like it's an encyclopedia, with long sequences of linear, narrative prose.