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

[Charlaquin]

Ok. Create a setting-neutral human stat block for the Monster Manual. I'm interested to see what a "Human" monster Stat block looks like.

I’d start with the Commoner stat block and give it proficiency in four skills. Since PC humans get proficiency in one skill and an extra origin feat, and skilled is the recommended default choice for that feat.

Likewise, for a generic orc stat block I’d start with a Commoner and give it Adrenaline Rush, Relentless Endurance, and 120 ft. Darkvision.

 

[Reynard]

Ok. Create a setting-neutral human stat block for the Monster Manual. I'm interested to see what a "Human" monster Stat block looks like.

There were like 20 of them in the 2E MM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the idea is that even if Orcs and Drow were at one point considered potential enemies in editions past... there's no reason to treat them that way now if we also aren't going to treat Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Dragonborn, Tieflings, Halflings, Goliath, Aasimar, etc. etc. the same way.

If the Monster Manual isn't going to have Goliath "monster statblocks" in the Monster Manual, then why do Orcs and Drow need them? Especially if WotC is trying to move away from the idea that Orcs and Drow are primarily seen as monsters and enemies?

But why do goblins, kobolds, and so many other former humanoids still need monster statblocks if orcs, drow and duergar don't?

I've asked this question several times. No one seems to have an answer.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I wrote about this in another thread but I think WOTC sidestepped the real issue rather than having an adult conversation about how to avoid painting an entire sentient species as all bad. A page in the DMG about how to handle sentient races in campaigns could have done a lot to help the situation.

As it is, they removed orcs and drow (the two biggest offenders of racial stereotyping in fantasy) and a handful of others like duergar. But they leave in other species like lizardfolk, aarakokra, minotaurs and others who ended up becoming playable species in other books (and are if you actually consider Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes compatible).

The new description of the minotaur shows me how they could have handled it. Not every minotaur is a manifestation of Baphomet just like not every orc has to follow Gruumsh, not every duergar has to follow Asmodeus, and not every drow has to follow Lolth. Explaining that "you are what you do" is the conversation they should have had instead of coming up with some excuse to not include orcs and drow.

WOTC patted themselves on the back for turning gnolls into fiends but their own setting, Eberron, treats them differently, along with other species like goblins and hobgoblins. Changing "humanoid" to "fey" doesn't solve the problem. It bypasses the problem.

And, in bypassing the problem they break backward compatibility because many older books reference orcs, drow, and duergar and have expectations about the features of those stat blocks like poison for the drow and enlarge for the duergar that aren't served by using generic NPC stat blocks. Orcs have been one of the most common monsters in the game for 50 years!

So yeah, I think it was a mistake to not address the issue and instead waving their hands and pretending it goes away. The same is true with their changing of "race" to "species" and calling the job done. Both A5e and Tales of the Valiant recognize the value of splitting lineage and heritage (or heritage and culture). But WOTC does a cut and paste and says it's all solved.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Actually, elemental "monster" versions are in the "Monster" Manual. You can use the NPC stats to represent humanoid versions.

It's not a perfect solution, and I expect the idea will be expanded on in the future.

A solution to what problem? Why some and not others?

 

[Reynard]

View attachment 395287

Here you go

Thanks. That is actually an interesting view into some of the thinking behind this change. You can see how some stuff is just about making names less icky. But the intent doesn't seem to be "all drow are Priest Acolytes" but very specifically that if a module has these 2014 monsters in an encounter, use these 2024 monsters as replacements (so as not to screw up the balance).

Nothing about this says that you can't have the PCs fight drow all day long. I feel better.

 

[Scribe]

I wrote about this in another thread but I think WOTC sidestepped the real issue rather than having an adult conversation about how to avoid painting an entire sentient species as all bad. A page in the DMG about how to handle sentient races in campaigns could have done a lot to help the situation.

Considering the level of discourse it seems most strive for, and it would seem to match the supposed target age group Wizards has for D&D, I cannot blame them really.

 

[UnknownDyson]

My big question about the 2025 MM is how much space is actually devoted to reserved to talking about orcs? If the stat blocks are missing is there at least an entry that discusses what an Orc is? As far as I recall, the half-orc was stripped out of the PHB, and if there's no dedicated Orc stat block, how do I find out about 2025 Orcs?

In the actual MM? None

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wrote about this in another thread but I think WOTC sidestepped the real issue rather than having an adult conversation about how to avoid painting an entire sentient species as all bad. A page in the DMG about how to handle sentient races in campaigns could have done a lot to help the situation.

As it is, they removed orcs and drow (the two biggest offenders of racial stereotyping in fantasy) and a handful of others like duergar. But they leave in other species like lizardfolk, aarakokra, minotaurs and others who ended up becoming playable species in other books (and are if you actually consider Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes compatible).

The new description of the minotaur shows me how they could have handled it. Not every minotaur is a manifestation of Baphomet just like not every orc has to follow Gruumsh, not every duergar has to follow Asmodeus, and not every drow has to follow Lolth. Explaining that "you are what you do" is the conversation they should have had instead of coming up with some excuse to not include orcs and drow.

WOTC patted themselves on the back for turning gnolls into fiends but their own setting, Eberron, treats them differently, along with other species like goblins and hobgoblins. Changing "humanoid" to "fey" doesn't solve the problem. It bypasses the problem.

And, in bypassing the problem they break backward compatibility because many older books reference orcs, drow, and duergar and have expectations about the features of those stat blocks like poison for the drow and enlarge for the duergar that aren't served by using generic NPC stat blocks. Orcs have been one of the most common monsters in the game for 50 years!

So yeah, I think it was a mistake to not address the issue and instead waving their hands and pretending it goes away. The same is true with their changing of "race" to "species" and calling the job done. Both A5e and Tales of the Valiant recognize the value of splitting lineage and heritage (or heritage and culture). But WOTC does a cut and paste and says it's all solved.

This is why I so very much dislike WotC's status as the tip of the spear in the hobby. Quite frankly they don't deserve it.

 

[Lidgar]

Perhaps they will put out a expansion book focused on humanoid statblocks and classes ("Book of Humanoids").

For each species, they could have a several statblocks that represent different NPC roles, similar to the Appendix, but more in depth by species.

Or maybe this is a product for the DM Guild.