D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Remathilis]

I was about to post something similar before I came across your post.

I understand the urge to treat humanoids differently (these sophonts resemble us too much, and we shouldn't de-personize them), but in a sense that is itself more inherently problematic (i.e. it's ok to de-personize and kill sophonts that don't resemble us too much).

I don't think you can really get away from the fact that it's not ok to kill sophonts.

I mean, there is a generalized problem with the whole notion of violence in D&D when you boil it down far enough. But that's a different topic that no one wants to discuss.

I guess WotC feels if they made the ex-humanoids monstrous enough, they could keep in their classic game role. If nobody complains about killing a fey hag or fiend bearded devil after all, they won't care as much much about a fey goblin or fiend gnoll. Will that work? IDK. They certainly achieved their goal of both removing monocultures from humanoids and not flooding Waterdeep with kobold bakers, gnoll miners and bugbear mail carriers. It's a compromise that appeases nobody, aka the best kind of compromise.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Part of the appeal of the new book is the layout, monster buffs etc. I vastly prefer it to the last one, but you're right. Any gaps can be filled with the 2014 book.

The Glass is Half Full.

There are things from older editions that just cannot be beat - 2e for fluff, 3e for mechanics and 4e for interesting combat options. These newer editions keep your older books evergreen and that is a pretty cool silver lining.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the intent is just: Are you in the middle of running an adventure and BAM! drow are needed. Use this statblock with the same CR!

It isn't meant to say anything about actual drow.

Yeah, which is more similar to 4E's general approach to monsters (which was honestly just "better" than 5E 2014), and is fine. I think they just really messed up by not including basic species overlays to apply to them, and forcing every DM to figure them out individually, and potentially from books they might not even have (which will impact newer DMs more the older ones).

I don't think this was a very well-considered and thought-through change, because otherwise they could formally have had PHB/MotM species work as those overlays.

 

[UnknownDyson]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, if you have the monster manuals of the earlier editions this Monster Manual is the bomb. You just cannot go wrong.

There are certainly some good things about the new MM, but yeah...strong disagree.

 

[Alzrius]

I mean, there is a generalized problem with the whole notion of violence in D&D when you boil it down far enough. But that's a different topic that no one wants to discuss.

I disagree, both with the violence being a problem and with no one wanting to discuss it.

The violence is the point, because performative/symbolic rejections of values that we do, in fact, hold dear are cathartic means whereby we relieve stress. Interpreting this as actual rejections of those values is the real problem, since that interpretation is almost always wrong.

 

[ezo]

I don't know, I'll have to wait to see the new MM in detail, but so far I haven't seen a single thing I can think of that makes this a better product than the first MM.

 

[AnotherGuy]

There are certainly some good things about the new MM, but yeah...strong disagree.

I was being sarcastic. I thought that was obvious.

I haven't made up my mind about whether I will acquire the new MM. I'm pretty happy with the approach I have now - an amalgamation of previous editions + 2014 + Level Up's Monsters + the Expanded Monster Manuals series. The PCs are high level so the standard monster blocks just do not cut it anymore.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I disagree, both with the violence being a problem and with no one wanting to discuss it.

The violence is the point, because performative/symbolic rejections of values that we do, in fact, hold dear are cathartic means whereby we relieve stress. Interpreting this as actual rejections of those values is the real problem, since that interpretation is almost always wrong.

Content isn’t message. You can enjoy cathartic violence on screen or in a game and be a pacifist in life. I don’t believe in using violence to solve conflict in life but I love mafia movies, Kung fu and Wuxia, other violent action films and violence in my RPGs. I was raised by a pacifist who could enjoy a movie like Aliens or Pulp Fiction.

 

[Reynard]

I don't know, I'll have to wait to see the new MM in detail, but so far I haven't seen a single thing I can think of that makes this a better product than the first MM.

The aret is deifnitely better. And there are some improvements in some of the statblocks. Not enough for my tastes, but some.

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree, both with the violence being a problem and with no one wanting to discuss it.

The violence is the point, because performative/symbolic rejections of values that we do, in fact, hold dear are cathartic means whereby we relieve stress. Interpreting this as actual rejections of those values is the real problem, since that interpretation is almost always wrong.

D&D had all manner of problematic elements baked into it's core, the biggest being a moral justification to kill sapient beings and take their stuff. I can point out a number of examples where people who believed they had a moral rationale for exterminating groups of people and acquiring their accumulated wealth, but I don't want another red text reminder.

But if we keep the violence to inhuman beings that may look but don't think or act like us, we can keep a veneer that D&D's core game loop isn't a war crime.

Anyway, way off topic.