Are Orcs in the Monster Manual? No and Yes.

The culture war surrounding orcs in Dungeons & Dragons continues with the release of the 2025 Monster Manual. Review copies of the Monster Manual are out in the wild, with many sites, EN World included, are giving their thoughts about the final core rulebook for the revised Fifth Edition ruleset. But while most commentators are discussing whether or not the monsters in the new Monster Manual hit harder than their 2014 equivalent, a growing number of commentators (mostly on Elon Musk's Twitter, but other places as well) are decrying the abolishment of orcs in the new rulebook.

Several months ago, would-be culture warriors complained about the depiction of orcs in the new Player's Handbook. Instead of depicting orcs as bloodthirsty marauders or creatures of evils, orcs (or more specifically, playable orcs) were depicted as a traveling species given endurance, determination, and the ability by their god Gruumsh to see in the darkness to help them "wander great plains, vast caverns, and churning seas." Keep in mind that one of the core facets of Dungeons & Dragons is that every game is defined by its players rather than an official canon, but some people were upset or annoyed about the shift in how a fictional species of humanoids were portrayed in two paragraphs of text and a piece of art in a 250+ page rulebook.

With the pending release of the Monster Manual, the orc is back in the spotlight once again. This time, it's because orcs no longer have statblocks in the Monster Manual. While the 2014 Monster Manual had a section detailing orc culture and three statblocks for various kinds of orcs, all specific mention of orcs have indeed been removed from the Monster Manual. The orcs are not the only creature to receive this treatment - drow are no longer in the Monster Manual, nor are duergar.

However, much of this is due to a deliberate design choice, meant not to sanitize Dungeons & Dragons from evil sentient species, but rather to add some versatility to a DM's toolbox. Orcs (and drow) are now covered under the expanded set of generic NPC statblocks in the Monster Manual. Instead of players being limited to only three Orc-specific statblocks (the Orc, the Orc War Chief and the Orc Eye of Gruumsh), DMs can use any of the 45 Humanoid statblocks in the book. Campaigns can now feature orc assassins, orc cultists, orc gladiators, or orc warriors instead of leaning on a handful of stats that lean into specific D&D lore.

Personally, I generally like that the D&D design ethos is leaning away from highly specific statblocks to more generalized ones. Why wouldn't an orc be an assassin or a pirate? Why should orcs (or any other species chosen to be adversaries in a D&D campaign) be limited to a handful of low CR statblocks? The design shift allows DMs more versatility, not less.

However, I do think that the D&D design team would do well to eventually provide some modularity to these generic statblocks, allowing DMs to "overlay" certain species-specific abilities over these NPC statblocks. Abilities like darkvision for orcs or the ability to cast darkness for drow or a fiendish rebuke for tieflings would be an easy way to separate the generic human assassin from the orc without impacting a statblock's CR.

As for the wider controversy surrounding orcs in D&D, the game and its lore is evolving over time, just as it has over the past 50 years. There's still a place for evil orcs, but they no longer need to be universally (or multiversally) evil within the context of the game. The idea that D&D's rulebooks must depict anything but the rules themselves a specific way is antithetical to the mutability of Dungeons & Dragons, which is supposed to be one of the game's biggest strengths.

 

[Yaarel]

In which case, the difference in species matters because there are combat differences.

Because the player species are intentionally to be suitable for any class, not just Fighters, but Rogues, Wizards, Bards, whatever. For this reason, the Humanoid species dont really differ from each in combat.

Species might differ in noncombat. Some see in the dark, others dont. A Goliath might be able to carry more weight. An Elf or a Tiefling might know an extra cantrip or two.

None of this especially important in combat. And if there is something that matters to the story that the DM is facilitating, the DM can add it. For example, that particular Tiefling might know the Fire Bolt cantrip (or the Chill Touch cantrip) and this might be relevant for some specific reason. If it matters, the DM can add the cantrip to the Baker statblock (or whatever the NPC statblocks cover).

Before you were talking about bakers baking. You don't need a statblock for that.

It has happened more than once. The player plays a "Thief". So tries to steal something from the bakery. The baker catches the player character, and altercation occurs. A fight breaks out. (It happens more than once.)

It helps for a DM to have a generic statblock to cover the incidental combat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The way that I look at it, monster statblocks dont use the same rules as player character sheets.

If the baker behind the counter is a Dwarf or an Orc, does it matter much mechanically? Mostly not.

If for some reason, I as a DM want to specify some mechanical detail from the Players Handbook, I can customize the statblock, and add that to it.

Why call out unique statblocks for Dwarf baker, Dwarf tailor, Dwarf (anachronistic) police officer? Or so on with any relevant profession?

And why have detailed statblocks for Dwarf NPCs?

What about a Triton, Githyanki, Tabaxi, or any other playable species that happens to be functioning as a Humanoid NPC?

At the end of the day, "Humanoid" NPCs works well enough as generic statblocks? A DM can customize it if necessary for a specific narrative purpose.

I'm not asking for distinct statblocks (as much as those are always cool). I'm asking for a single page in the MM with species modifiers to more accurately represent different NPCs of different species, perhaps along with some advice.

You know, for all those new to RPGs DMs 5.5 was written to support.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I remember correctly, there can be Goblinoids that Humanoid instead of Fey. I am unsure how this plays out in specific products tho.

They have perhaps said that in marketing materials, but mechanically they're all fey.

 

[Yaarel]

They have perhaps said that in marketing materials, but mechanically they're all fey.

Yeah, I think in a video?

But like Elf being Fey or Humanoid, Goblinoids will be too.

 

[sevenbastard]

I reskinded lots of statblocks as orcs in 5e so this really isn't that diffrent. I've also reskined lots of Stat blocks as goblins. I've turned the yeti stat block into an undead hagspawn wolf creature. A red dragon Stat block into a fire breathing guardian statue. And so many more.

If your not reskinning your not living.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm not asking for distinct statblocks (as much as those are always cool). I'm asking for a single page in the MM with species modifiers to more accurately represent different NPCs of different species, perhaps along with some advice.

You know, for all those new to RPGs DMs 5.5 was written to support.

Maybe a helpful approach might be the generic "Humanoid" statblocks for various "backgrounds". Then add a table with a brief list of species traits that a DM might want to add to tweak a statblock.

(But tweaking a statblock is something a DM can and should do anyway if relevant to the story.)

 

[Laurefindel]

I have a feeling that my opinion on this isn’t going to be popular, but orcs not having dedicated stat blocs in the MM since they now are a full-fledged player-character species makes sense. Base-game PC species are not «monsters»; they are NPCs and require generic NPC blocs. That was a consequent move.

But otherwise, removing orcs as monster blocs because the have a recognized culture is by itself flawed. Then, most humanoid-looking species, such as goblins, shouldn’t be in the MM either, whether they are fey instead of humanoids or not (so what, because hold person doesn’t work on them makes them non-people now?). I tend to agree that entries in a MM should be meant as antagonists or potential allies on the battlefield. I agree that an orc baker shouldn’t be that different from a dwarf baker, but the argument that we don’t really need a stat block for a baker holds, and I would prefer, for the sake of diversity in antagonists, that a dwarf warrior should be visibly different from an orc warrior.

 

[Smackpixi]

So Orcs have been brought into the fold, another species existing in the world like Dwarves, Humans, Elves, Gnomes, etc. No longer others, monsters. it’s a pretty big break with the past, but there we go, fine. There’s still plenty of sentient others who for tribes, cultures, and maybe cities in the MM. I guess the mechanical distinction is that Orcs are playable in the PHB, and the very similar Hobgoblin is not. Is what it is.

Are Drow and Duregar still monsters?

 

[Yaarel]

There are over a hundred different playable species. We dont need to multiply that by separate NPC statblocks for baker, librarian, urchin, merchant, and every other NPC profession.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe a helpful approach might be the generic "Humanoid" statblocks for various "backgrounds". Then add a table with a brief list of species traits that a DM might want to add to tweak a statblock.

(But tweaking a statblock is something a DM can and should do anyway if relevant to the story.)

I think you could get away with a "commoner" statblock and a little list of skills and tool proficiencies for guidance.

But that does obviate the need for that simple 1 page chart that gives you how to modify any given NPC statblock for the 20 or so most common species -- just like was in the 2014 game.