So with the wide release of Monsters of the Multiverse, I was finally asked the one question that I've been 'selectively' avoiding.
Player: "Monsters of the Multiverse made some changes to racial traits. Do we get to apply those to existing characters?" In this case, the character in question is an Air Genasi.
Question:
How are you handling the updated racial traits that have come with MotM regarding existing characters?
They have the option to swap out the legacy for the new race, test it out a session, if they don't like it they can switch back to the legacy next session, trial is over. It's just a swap out of racial features, aside from ability modifiers, they don't get to redistribute ability scores or anything like that, largely because the stats are more used to propel class features than dwell on racial features ... and I don't think that's unique to my tables.
It's not really a big deal in my campaign as the multiverse and cosmology is unstable as part of the "plot" so having a character suddenly manifest differently is something that could actually happen "in game."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
My answer would be a flat no. Only one of my players would be eligible for the upgrades anyway, and I know it would make my powergamer jealous. I don't want to deal with that noise.
There’s a dragonborn in my party that switched to the new version when fizban came out. I don’t think anyone noticed. I’d basically go with midnightplat’s suggestion. They pick one, make the switch and move on.
I would add that before starting a new campaign, there should probably be a discussion about which source yo use, and have everyone use the same, either all legacy or all MMM. Less for balance, and more for simplicity of knowing where to look things up for the DM.
If my players asked me then I'd let them. However the only players the new changes would affect is the Aarakocra and I don't think he'd ask to have his flying speed reduced by 20ft.
As an Air Genasi Monk, I would have preferred to use the new specs, as it's a solid upgrade to the character. We are now level 13, however and our DM has provided a combination of items and "surgeries" which have allowed me to overcome the shortfalls I didn't like (no darkvision was a big one for me) The better levitate option would be nice but certainly not enough for me to want to bother changing him now.
Going forward, I will be making notes on what the players choose for their starting "race" and tracking who picks Legacy and who picks New. For myself, so long as it's available, I will be using the Legacy stats for most characters I create, I think. I started with those, they make the most sense to me and I have no need or interest in changing things, so.....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
My answer would be a flat no. Only one of my players would be eligible for the upgrades anyway, and I know it would make my powergamer jealous. I don't want to deal with that noise.
Interesting point of view.
While I am fortunate, I do not have any power gamers in my running game. A few player characters (Tiefling and Dwarf) do not benefit, unlike the Tabaxi and Tortle, who, along with the Air Genasi, would gain benefits with a Trait upgrade. I should at least talk to the Tiefling and Dwarf players to see how they feel and have a chance to voice their opinion.
They have the option to swap out the legacy for the new race, test it out a session, if they don't like it they can switch back to the legacy next session, trial is over. It's just a swap out of racial features, aside from ability modifiers, they don't get to redistribute ability scores or anything like that, largely because the stats are more used to propel class features than dwell on racial features ... and I don't think that's unique to my tables.
It's not really a big deal in my campaign as the multiverse and cosmology is unstable as part of the "plot" so having a character suddenly manifest differently is something that could actually happen "in game."
A good approach for the test run but do you think one session is enough for proper gauging if the player wants to commit to the Trait upgrade?
I sorta agree with Sanvael's sentiment, but at the same time I can see how the Genasi gets more impacted than other races by binding the innate magic to different stats (and I won't cascade into CON based magic though I'm sad to see it removed from the race) ... I also notice Hobgoblins losing their martiality for a sort of "team spirit" magic is a significant change. So I'd say the bulk of the races get mild nerfs and buffs but for other races there are significant impacts in the redesign. LIke Changeling "You are now Fey. Wait, what..." it's sorta weird because it actually takes what was largely a more agnostic race and forcing Feywild lore on it where it wasn't before, but I digress.
If I know a player is experimenting with a revised race, I actually put some notes out ahead of time so I can highlight what they're gaining and also showing what they're missing. My games usually meet every two weeks so it's easy to cater. It's not that different from the encounters I build when players level up to feel out their new capacities.
I'll also say my sessions are in two hour range and I don't anticipate there being a big problem. I wouldn't let my game dwell on it too much. Hence the quick decision requirement. Like you, I don't have a lot of optimizers in my games (sometimes I have to even coach them into effectiveness, let alone optimizing) and I think in a table like that it's less of a problem.
Just like content from any book though, it's the DM's perogative regarding incorporating content, including when and how.
I bought the books so they could be used with my subscription, and I get all the more value for money from my players using them (the sooner, the better). I'd give them the opportunity to make the transition before the session begins or at the end of the coming session, depending on how much time the players need.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I told my group that, if they want to do so, they're welcome to switch their character's legacy race for the new one.
It only affected 3 out of 7 characters and, from my perspective, any power differences are fairly minimal at 8th level (current level in my campaign), compared to their class/subclass features, magic items, blessings etc.
I approach this issue from a player-centered mindset. If my players want to swap these features, I simply let them. These things are easily explained in-game when they are noticeable changes and most of the time they are not. If my players like the changes, they can keep them and if they do not like them on their PC, wave them away. To me, these are non-issues and a waste of time to get in a twist over.
I'm not buying that book and I don't let people use content that I don't own. I don't think I'm allowing non-PHB races moving forward anyhow. I can't really do a good job at incorporating like 60 distinct population groups into my games and if the only meaningful distinction they have in my game is that they get wings or a swim speed, then they should be cut.
Personally, I am going through the changes and letting my players know what differences there are for their race, then allowing them to choose which version of the race they want to play. No reason to make them play a worse version of the class, simply because they happened to choose their race before a new book came out, or nerf their existing character mid-campaign.
So far, it has not caused one iota of trouble for either me or my players.
Personally, I am going through the changes and letting my players know what differences there are for their race, then allowing them to choose which version of the race they want to play. No reason to make them play a worse version of the class, simply because they happened to choose their race before a new book came out, or nerf their existing character mid-campaign.
So far, it has not caused one iota of trouble for either me or my players.
They're not playing a class. They're playing a character. Suboptimal choices aren't wrong and to treat it like if your race bonus doesn't match up to your class then the character is flawed is deeply misguided. If we allow ourselves to think that way, then any joy or magic in the game is replaced by the sheer force of arthithmatic and we might as well leave it to the AIs to play.
Personally, I am going through the changes and letting my players know what differences there are for their race, then allowing them to choose which version of the race they want to play. No reason to make them play a worse version of the class, simply because they happened to choose their race before a new book came out, or nerf their existing character mid-campaign.
So far, it has not caused one iota of trouble for either me or my players.
They're not playing a class. They're playing a character. Suboptimal choices aren't wrong and to treat it like if your race bonus doesn't match up to your class then the character is flawed is deeply misguided. If we allow ourselves to think that way, then any joy or magic in the game is replaced by the sheer force of arthithmatic and we might as well leave it to the AIs to play.
My mistake; I meant to write race, not class, but was speaking with someone about classes and wrote the wrong word.
That said, it’s not your job to be the “fun police” and decide what is fun for other groups and players - there is no wrong way to play D&D, other than the “my way is right and anyone who played otherwise is a [insert ad hominem like “AI who doesn’t get joy out of the game”]” method that I’ve seen you espouse on a few threads.
If my Yuan-ti understandably doesn’t want to switch over to an objectively worse version over to the race mid-game, I’m not going to force him to. If my Fire Genasi wants to use the new version of her race because she likes it better and it provides her some additional boons, of course I’ll let her.
And if they want to take a suboptimal choice, by all means, I’ll let them - though no one has taken that choice thus far, nor do I expect anyone to.
I have given all my players the choice to switch if they want, except for one game where the next session is the last in that campaign. Makes no sense to switch at that point.
Play through with the races that existed pre-release of this manual.
The next campaign? Definitely using these new races. Some races have gotten a little less appealing, others have gotten a lot more, but overall this was a good change to the game, brought a lot of races into line with the existing basic races in the player's manual, and fixed a lot of broken or 'weak' races.
My only complain is making so many of the races Fae-related or having once been native to the Feywilds. So many races now come from the Fae Realms now that it has lost its mystique and appeal for the most part. That said, referencing that many of the Gobinoids have 'escaped' Maglubiyet's grasp fills me with hope that we'll see Faerun become a lot less Tolkien-like in the future, and start playing upon national and religious lines rather than racial ones. It's a trope from the 80's and it needs to go.
Nice to see the Kenku get their speech back, the Aarakocra are legal now without being horribly broken or one-note and the Eladrins have a lot more spice to them.
My only complain is making so many of the races Fae-related or having once been native to the Feywilds. So many races now come from the Fae Realms now that it has lost its mystique and appeal for the most part. That said, referencing that many of the Gobinoids have 'escaped' Maglubiyet's grasp fills me with hope that we'll see Faerun become a lot less Tolkien-like in the future, and start playing upon national and religious lines rather than racial ones. It's a trope from the 80's and it needs to go.
I love it, if you research Celtic myth you will quickly see that elves, dwarves, goblins and hobgoblins and several others were considered as fae beings. In fact hobgoblins actually helped out around the home doing odd jobs and chores to help the occupants in return for food treats. So in a way, this book is actually taking the races back toward real world mythical creatures. I’m all for that. Grounding them in actual folklore allows a wealth of real-world cultural stories and beliefs to be incorporated into games and enriches the stories that can be told.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Setup:
So with the wide release of Monsters of the Multiverse, I was finally asked the one question that I've been 'selectively' avoiding.
Player: "Monsters of the Multiverse made some changes to racial traits. Do we get to apply those to existing characters?" In this case, the character in question is an Air Genasi.
Question:
How are you handling the updated racial traits that have come with MotM regarding existing characters?
They have the option to swap out the legacy for the new race, test it out a session, if they don't like it they can switch back to the legacy next session, trial is over. It's just a swap out of racial features, aside from ability modifiers, they don't get to redistribute ability scores or anything like that, largely because the stats are more used to propel class features than dwell on racial features ... and I don't think that's unique to my tables.
It's not really a big deal in my campaign as the multiverse and cosmology is unstable as part of the "plot" so having a character suddenly manifest differently is something that could actually happen "in game."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
My answer would be a flat no. Only one of my players would be eligible for the upgrades anyway, and I know it would make my powergamer jealous. I don't want to deal with that noise.
There’s a dragonborn in my party that switched to the new version when fizban came out. I don’t think anyone noticed. I’d basically go with midnightplat’s suggestion. They pick one, make the switch and move on.
I would add that before starting a new campaign, there should probably be a discussion about which source yo use, and have everyone use the same, either all legacy or all MMM. Less for balance, and more for simplicity of knowing where to look things up for the DM.
If my players asked me then I'd let them. However the only players the new changes would affect is the Aarakocra and I don't think he'd ask to have his flying speed reduced by 20ft.
As an Air Genasi Monk, I would have preferred to use the new specs, as it's a solid upgrade to the character. We are now level 13, however and our DM has provided a combination of items and "surgeries" which have allowed me to overcome the shortfalls I didn't like (no darkvision was a big one for me) The better levitate option would be nice but certainly not enough for me to want to bother changing him now.
Going forward, I will be making notes on what the players choose for their starting "race" and tracking who picks Legacy and who picks New. For myself, so long as it's available, I will be using the Legacy stats for most characters I create, I think. I started with those, they make the most sense to me and I have no need or interest in changing things, so.....
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Interesting point of view.
While I am fortunate, I do not have any power gamers in my running game. A few player characters (Tiefling and Dwarf) do not benefit, unlike the Tabaxi and Tortle, who, along with the Air Genasi, would gain benefits with a Trait upgrade. I should at least talk to the Tiefling and Dwarf players to see how they feel and have a chance to voice their opinion.
A good approach for the test run but do you think one session is enough for proper gauging if the player wants to commit to the Trait upgrade?
It will have a negligible effect on your games. If a player really wanted to go for it I'd let them, but I doubt it would ever be very meaningful.
I sorta agree with Sanvael's sentiment, but at the same time I can see how the Genasi gets more impacted than other races by binding the innate magic to different stats (and I won't cascade into CON based magic though I'm sad to see it removed from the race) ... I also notice Hobgoblins losing their martiality for a sort of "team spirit" magic is a significant change. So I'd say the bulk of the races get mild nerfs and buffs but for other races there are significant impacts in the redesign. LIke Changeling "You are now Fey. Wait, what..." it's sorta weird because it actually takes what was largely a more agnostic race and forcing Feywild lore on it where it wasn't before, but I digress.
If I know a player is experimenting with a revised race, I actually put some notes out ahead of time so I can highlight what they're gaining and also showing what they're missing. My games usually meet every two weeks so it's easy to cater. It's not that different from the encounters I build when players level up to feel out their new capacities.
I'll also say my sessions are in two hour range and I don't anticipate there being a big problem. I wouldn't let my game dwell on it too much. Hence the quick decision requirement. Like you, I don't have a lot of optimizers in my games (sometimes I have to even coach them into effectiveness, let alone optimizing) and I think in a table like that it's less of a problem.
Just like content from any book though, it's the DM's perogative regarding incorporating content, including when and how.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I bought the books so they could be used with my subscription, and I get all the more value for money from my players using them (the sooner, the better). I'd give them the opportunity to make the transition before the session begins or at the end of the coming session, depending on how much time the players need.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI told my group that, if they want to do so, they're welcome to switch their character's legacy race for the new one.
It only affected 3 out of 7 characters and, from my perspective, any power differences are fairly minimal at 8th level (current level in my campaign), compared to their class/subclass features, magic items, blessings etc.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I approach this issue from a player-centered mindset. If my players want to swap these features, I simply let them. These things are easily explained in-game when they are noticeable changes and most of the time they are not. If my players like the changes, they can keep them and if they do not like them on their PC, wave them away. To me, these are non-issues and a waste of time to get in a twist over.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I'm not buying that book and I don't let people use content that I don't own. I don't think I'm allowing non-PHB races moving forward anyhow. I can't really do a good job at incorporating like 60 distinct population groups into my games and if the only meaningful distinction they have in my game is that they get wings or a swim speed, then they should be cut.
Personally, I am going through the changes and letting my players know what differences there are for their race, then allowing them to choose which version of the race they want to play. No reason to make them play a worse version of the class, simply because they happened to choose their race before a new book came out, or nerf their existing character mid-campaign.
So far, it has not caused one iota of trouble for either me or my players.
They're not playing a class. They're playing a character. Suboptimal choices aren't wrong and to treat it like if your race bonus doesn't match up to your class then the character is flawed is deeply misguided. If we allow ourselves to think that way, then any joy or magic in the game is replaced by the sheer force of arthithmatic and we might as well leave it to the AIs to play.
My mistake; I meant to write race, not class, but was speaking with someone about classes and wrote the wrong word.
That said, it’s not your job to be the “fun police” and decide what is fun for other groups and players - there is no wrong way to play D&D, other than the “my way is right and anyone who played otherwise is a [insert ad hominem like “AI who doesn’t get joy out of the game”]” method that I’ve seen you espouse on a few threads.
If my Yuan-ti understandably doesn’t want to switch over to an objectively worse version over to the race mid-game, I’m not going to force him to. If my Fire Genasi wants to use the new version of her race because she likes it better and it provides her some additional boons, of course I’ll let her.
And if they want to take a suboptimal choice, by all means, I’ll let them - though no one has taken that choice thus far, nor do I expect anyone to.
I have given all my players the choice to switch if they want, except for one game where the next session is the last in that campaign. Makes no sense to switch at that point.
Honestly, no.
Play through with the races that existed pre-release of this manual.
The next campaign? Definitely using these new races. Some races have gotten a little less appealing, others have gotten a lot more, but overall this was a good change to the game, brought a lot of races into line with the existing basic races in the player's manual, and fixed a lot of broken or 'weak' races.
My only complain is making so many of the races Fae-related or having once been native to the Feywilds. So many races now come from the Fae Realms now that it has lost its mystique and appeal for the most part. That said, referencing that many of the Gobinoids have 'escaped' Maglubiyet's grasp fills me with hope that we'll see Faerun become a lot less Tolkien-like in the future, and start playing upon national and religious lines rather than racial ones. It's a trope from the 80's and it needs to go.
Nice to see the Kenku get their speech back, the Aarakocra are legal now without being horribly broken or one-note and the Eladrins have a lot more spice to them.
I love it, if you research Celtic myth you will quickly see that elves, dwarves, goblins and hobgoblins and several others were considered as fae beings. In fact hobgoblins actually helped out around the home doing odd jobs and chores to help the occupants in return for food treats. So in a way, this book is actually taking the races back toward real world mythical creatures. I’m all for that. Grounding them in actual folklore allows a wealth of real-world cultural stories and beliefs to be incorporated into games and enriches the stories that can be told.