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

[Stormonu]

The latest (and last) promo video for the 2025 Monster Manual states that there will be statblocks for Menzoberranzan Drow in the upcoming Forgotten Realms book.

day late, dollar short.

 

[Dire Bare]

No humans, dwarves, goliaths, gnomes or halflings in the 2014 MM. Was it a problem then? Why it a problem now?

Dude, he's just stating he would prefer them to be in there, both in the 2014 MM and the 2024 MM. It's not a problem, it's a preference.

I'm on board with it too.

I understand why WotC did what they did in the new MM, and I'm behind the sentiment. I think @Clint_L is too. I actually love the "generic" humanoid statblocks in the book and how they are to be used. BUT I would also love a few bespoke statblocks for each PC race, designed and presented in a way to avoid the people-as-monsters problem.

But WotC didn't go that way, and it doesn't bother me all that much. Overall, I appreciate the direction they are going and I'm loving the new MM.

 

[Scribe]

day late, dollar short.

$60 dollars.

Or just get Shadowdark, 1 book, and save a considerable sum!

 

[Scribe]

If WotC cared about my Christian beliefs, I would tell them to remove every reference to Demon, Devil, Yugoloth, etc as I find their inclusion appalling, especially such things as the Warlock Fiendish patron where you are "making a deal with the devil". And that is not a joke.

But they won't, and I'll just deal with it.

There's an interesting discussion in there, that is outside this boards remit.

 

[Remathilis]

I understand why WotC did what they did in the new MM, and I'm behind the sentiment. I think @Clint_L is too. I actually love the "generic" humanoid statblocks in the book and how they are to be used. BUT I would also love a few bespoke statblocks for each PC race, designed and presented in a way to avoid the people-as-monsters problem.

I think the only way you avoid people as monsters is to make many of them play against type: orc archmages, dwarf necromancers, gnome barbarians, Goliath assassins, etc. Otherwise you get fall back into the tropes of orc berserkers and elf nobles that the game was trying to avoid.

 

[Guest 85555]

Personally I like a mixture of demihumans in the MM. I like having evil bandits, but also you need merchants and pilgrims to give a broad range of encounter types. And some things, like snooty Elven aristocrats, just work

 

[abirdcall]

But many have become less flavourful by having their entries removed altogether. I don't like that my MM doesn't include dwarves, orcs, goliaths, humans, etc.

As I argued previously, similar to lizard folk, all playable species should have a few specific examples in the MM. And I would just keep the type as humanoid, while setting the alignment to "any."

What are you removing?

And how is a generic human more flavourful than a pirate? Or the flip side, why is there a specific role or profession limited to just humans?

All humanoids can pursue the same roles. That is great design.

 

[abirdcall]

You mean you missed the "both sides"-ing of gender-based Strength caps, somehow, still, in the year of someone's lord 2025? You must have incredible foresight. Or little patience.

...is there a correlation there?

That one didn't show up for me but I'm sure I didn't miss it.

I think a little from column A and a lot from column B for me.

 

[Faolyn]

It depends on how you use Strength. As a measure of one's ability to utilize the physical power they have? No. As a measure of how much a person can lift, carry, etc.? Yes.

There are many D&D players who want a game based on real-world facts; yes, eventhough it is a fantasy game. The strongest woman in the world is not as strong as the stongest man. So, for an absolute "cap", yes, so the people who enjoy playing this way can.

This "cap" could be done by adjust max lift instead of STR score. It would be like the variant for using Encumbrance instead of a flat STR x15 rule.

Why do we need this cap when it's a fantasy game, and maybe my female character has a giant in her bloodline, or was blessed by faeries at birth, and can thus carry as much as a man?

Why do we need this cap when there's going to be at most four to six women in a party, and of them maybe only one or two are going to rely on Strength, and the GM controls every single male NPC in the world and can make them as strong as they want them to be?

But OK, sure, it's "realistic" to assume that women aren't as physically strong as men. Sure. I recall a letter in an old Dragon Magazine from the 1e days--maybe in the letter column, maybe in the forum, can't remember--that went along the lines of: Women are healthier, hardier, can handle disease better, can give birth, and live longer, so men should have a cap on Constitution. Women are more flexible than men, so men should have a cap on Dexterity. Women are better at problem solving and paying attention to small details, and everyone knows men do some really dumb stuff, so men should have a cap on Intelligence and Wisdom. And, of course, women are just prettier than men, so men should have a cap on Charisma.

Some of the above is actually quite true. I can provide links, if you like.

So let's be realistic. Give men a small penalty to certain saving throws and ability checks. Nothing big. Just something that that amounts to a -2 or so on some rolls based on the fact that they decided their character didn't have a vagina. It uses real-world facts, so it's fair, right? If they don't want that penalty, they just have to play a woman.

Somehow, if the game tried to be "realistic" by limiting men in this way, there would be an uproar, no matter how "realistic" it is. Somehow "realism" is only OK if it supports your (generic your) bigoted beliefs.

 

[Clint_L]

No humans, dwarves, goliaths, gnomes or halflings in the 2014 MM. Was it a problem then? Why it a problem now?

It was a problem then, for me. It's more of a problem now, for me, because we've extended the number of creatures excluded from the MM, and very inconsistently so, at that. To me, it is very weird that you can't find an elf or an orc in the MM.

Not sure why you ask what I am removing? I'm not seeing this as a zero sum situation. I like the generic stat blocks, and I would also like to see a few bespoke entries for every playable species. Why do goblins and lizard folk get them, but not humans and orcs? Seems arbitrary.

I think you are making some assumptions about my position.

I think the underlying problem is the alignment system. It just creates havoc and now is leading to some weird publishing choices. Don't assume any sentient being has to be a particular way, let story drive everything, and problem solved.