D&D (2024) Humanoids in the MM...

[dave2008]

I too am quite fond of DR, but I'd rather do it myself then see WotC make some version of it I don't really like but that nonetheless soft-locks every other publisher for 5e from making one.

Not a WotC thing to me, I have never seen anyone "do it right" IMO.

When I say I want to see DR or any changes I mean that I want them to be changed in a way I want. That is a baseline assumption to me, I didn't think that needed to be clarified, my apologies.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Although I doubt 4e did for the same reasons 5.5 might.

Maybe not exactly the same reasons, but I do recall the designers saying that they avoided using, for example, just plain "orc" for an "orc that would come into conflict with the PCs" because your average, civilian orc probably would not. Or something to that effect. It certainly wasn't NOT on their minds, if maybe not as explicitly chosen for inclusiveness as it is today.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Ah. Forgot about their nigh-obsessive adventure path focus. Fair enough.

It’s more a backwards compatibility thing.

 

[dave2008]

Although I doubt 4e did for the same reasons 5.5 might.

Why?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not a WotC thing to me, I have never seen anyone "do it right" IMO.

When I say I want to see DR or any changes I mean that I want them to be changed in a way I want. That is a baseline assumption to me, I didn't think that needed to be clarified, my apologies.

Fair enough. You mentioned "core rules" though. Core rules for what game?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why?

Because they did it with everything in 4e that had more than one statblock. 4e's naming conventions for monsters were so consistent it was memed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s more a backwards compatibility thing.

That's what I mean. They're obsessed with presenting backwards compatability, but only on a surface level and only for their still-on-sale adventures (now that core books are out and selling well).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe not exactly the same reasons, but I do recall the designers saying that they avoided using, for example, just plain "orc" for an "orc that would come into conflict with the PCs" because your average, civilian orc probably would not. Or something to that effect. It certainly wasn't NOT on their minds, if maybe not as explicitly chosen for inclusiveness as it is today.

That's my point. Inclusivity was not their top priority at the time like it is now.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As an aside, I recall having always (since the 80's) assumed that the orcs that PCs fight are usually an "orc raiding party" and not representative of your average orc in temperament or goals. I did see their culture as extolling the virtues of the mighty warrior, and as nomads, having little respect for "settled" folks, but I always felt that just exactly how wrong they were was a question that could be argued, depending on your point of view.

I guess I've never been much of a believer in alignment!

 

[Micah Sweet]

As an aside, I recall having always (since the 80's) assumed that the orcs that PCs fight are usually an "orc raiding party" and not representative of your average orc in temperament or goals. I did see their culture as extolling the virtues of the mighty warrior, and as nomads, having little respect for "settled" folks, but I always felt that just exactly how wrong they were was a question that could be argued, depending on your point of view.

I guess I've never been much of a believer in alignment!

I've always seen alignment as more of a "what team do you support (if any)" sort of thing.