D&D 5E List of All 33 Races in Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse

Mecheon · Jan 12, 2022

Also, regarding Yuan-Ti, I can't help but wonder if they're just merging them together because, frankly, a lot of folks out there who played Yuan-Ti didn't do it for the 'Secretly a snake person' but, just to play as a snake person.

Also someone elsewhere brought up from the missing races, Grung. I'd love to see them getting an update like this given their weakness side makes them a bit... Limited to certain areas, and with Darkvision being removed its likely they would have gotten a similar boost

JEB · Jan 12, 2022

AcererakTriple6 said:
I'm 100% on board with this lore update for 5e. It makes sense from a real-world standpoint (Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Bugbears were all considered fey in folklore), and it makes sense from a design standpoint (have the Elves and Gnomes be to the Seelie Fey as Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Bugbears are to the Unseelie Fey).

The issue is that unlike the change to drow lore (which is additive, Lolth-worshipping drow explicitly still exist, and the species' rules didn't change (yet)), this represents a more fundamental change to how goblinkin will be both played and portrayed in all settings.

If this had been specific to a particular setting (like a 5e Nentir Vale, which would be neat) it'd be one thing, but I can see folks being grumpy that a core monster/PC race portrayal is being significantly altered, especially in the middle of an edition.

overgeeked · Jan 12, 2022

Mecheon said:
Also, regarding Yuan-Ti, I can't help but wonder if they're just merging them together because, frankly, a lot of folks out there who played Yuan-Ti didn't do it for the 'Secretly a snake person' but, just to play as a snake person.

Also someone elsewhere brought up from the missing races, Grung. I'd love to see them getting an update like this given their weakness side makes them a bit... Limited to certain areas, and with Darkvision being removed its likely they would have gotten a similar boost

I honestly hope they're going proper snake person with with yuan-ti. I never cared for the "I'm secretly a tiny-bit snake person" routine of the purebloods. I mean, we have rabbit-folk, lizard-folk, owl-folk, a few kinds of dragon-folk, turtle-folk, a dozen kinds of goblin-folk, cow-folk, robot-folk, bird-folk, more bird-folk, angel-folk, devil-folk, horse-folk, elemental-folk, were-folk, goat-folk, and cat-folk. None of them are in any real sense "hiding" their true natures. It's pretty obvious what they are. I really hope they let the snake-folk just be snake-folk.

R_J_K75 · Jan 12, 2022

Mecheon said:
I think its moreso tying in "Goblins are descended from Fey, just like Elves and Gnomes" as their thing

Which I'm totally down for.

I can live with that or ignore it. But weren't goblinoids usually tied more towards being dwarven and human enemies and make more sense to give them abilities along those lines? Only race I see having a tie to elves are orcs which are humanoids. IDK I guess more light could be shed on this as people see the book as a whole.

doctorbadwolf · Jan 12, 2022

HammerMan said:
my idea is if the rules of the PHB are overturned enough that a character made from one doesn't look like one made by the other... it isn't a new edition but close enough to cheese off people

I guess I don’t agree that a collection of secondary source races that open up the race aspect of chargen qualifies as “the rules of the PHB [being] overturned” and certainly not “enough that a character made from one does look like one made by the other”.

If I showed you two sheets, using the same race, but it’s a race you’ve never looked at and don’t know the specifics of, you wouldn’t know which sheet was made with which writeup.

And no general rules have even changed.

R_J_K75 · Jan 12, 2022

AcererakTriple6 said:
It's not a change for the sake of change. It's a lore change that echoes the lore of Goblinoids from 4e (where they were stated to come from the Feywild).

I didnt remember this so I stand corrected.

AcererakTriple6 said:
If having cultural features in racial stats is what makes the game be D&D for you . . . that seems absolutely backwards to me and a strange hill to die on, but you're fine to keep it. However, it is absolutely not true to say that people are moving to remove racial mechanics entirely.

Why don't we continue this conversation in 3-5 years and see where the game is at that point? I may be wrong, hopefully I am and the game advances for the better. Im going to bow out of this thread rather than discussing a book I haven't read yet. We can agree to disagree as we are both entitled to our opinion of what we prefer from and consider D&D.

Levistus's_Leviathan · Jan 12, 2022

JEB said:
The issue is that unlike the change to drow lore (which is additive, Lolth-worshipping drow explicitly still exist, and the species' rules didn't change (yet)), this represents a more fundamental change to how goblinkin will be both played and portrayed in all settings.

If this had been specific to a particular setting (like a 5e Nentir Vale, which would be neat) it'd be one thing, but I can see folks being grumpy that a core monster/PC race portrayal is being significantly altered, especially in the middle of an edition.

Yeah, I can get that. I still like the change, though, and won't apologize to people for me getting something that I like at no expense of theirs. I just think it makes sense, and support it. Not much that I can do for the people that don't like it. I guess . . . just keep using the previous versions of these races if you don't like the Fey Ancestry bit. Pretty much a non-problem for them, IMO, and an overall boon for me.

And being someone that has never played 4e, but likes the lore that they've heard about it, I would buy a 5e conversion of Nentir Vale as soon as it was physically possible to get it.

ChaosOS · Jan 12, 2022

Professor Murder said:
Bummer. I was hoping that Spell resistance would be removed, as it prevents me permitting it as a PC race in my games.

I know the thread has rocketed past this, but I'll point out that Spell Resistance is nerfed a very different way in the book - most monsters are converted to spell-like abilities rather than spells, which means Magic Resistance is more of a "Friendly Fire Resistance" than actually doing things against enemy combatants.

JEB · Jan 12, 2022

AcererakTriple6 said:
Pretty much a non-problem for them, IMO

Unless you want to use official material that involves goblinkin subsequent to this shift, especially if the newer material strongly emphasizes the new fey-centric approach. In which case you're faced with rewriting it to match the older version you still use - possibly significantly - or simply find that the new material is useless to you.

Sure, you can argue it isn't a big problem, but it's not a non-problem.

AcererakTriple6 said:
And being someone that has never played 4e, but likes the lore that they've heard about it, I would buy a 5e conversion of Nentir Vale as soon as it was physically possible to get it.

Same here! I honestly wasn't interested in the Nentir Vale when it replaced the default D&D assumptions that came before, but as a setting unto itself it's much more appealing. Perhaps the First World concept is laying the groundwork for a restored Nentir Vale...

Jfdlsjfd · Jan 12, 2022

el-remmen said:
Anyone know what the reasoning is for this?

Just when I was finally grudgingly accepting 25 feet for the smalfolk they go an up it to 30? Thanks, I hate it.

Since they stated that PCs from any race are within the size range of humans anyway, and the reduced speed of halflings or dwarves was never attributed to any other source of inherent slowness than them being short, there is no longer any reason to have reduced speed for them either.