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

As opposed to 5e settings not owned by WotC.
Are we talking about Dungeons & Dragons or 5E here? From WotC's perspective, and mine to be honest, what do they care about settings they don't own? What consideration do you think WotC should give, if any, to those settings?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Are we talking about Dungeons & Dragons or 5E here? From WotC's perspective, and mine to be honest, what do they care about settings they don't own? What consideration do you think WotC should give, if any, to those settings?
None, but the lore in their new core is now inconsistent with the lore in their campaign settings. Gnolls are practically a different kind of creature in Eberron than they are in the 5.5 MM, for example.
 

It seems like minotaurs may also be getting the monstrosity/humanoid treatment in a future supplement, as the only one provided in the 2025 MM is the "Minotaur of Baphomet," and the text states that "While most minotaurs live free of the demon lord's bonds, those that serve him become minotaurs of Baphomet." Sort of like how they treated lizardfolk, although the minotaur entry doesn't expressly stipulate that common minotaurs are Humanoid.
 


Wouldnt this be the ideal? Settings can actually be..distinct?
If gnolls are always-Evil monstrous fiends in one world but intelligent creatures with their own culture and any alignment in another, and that's not just perception, one of those aren't gnolls.
 

If gnolls are always-Evil monstrous fiends in one world but intelligent creatures with their own culture and any alignment in another, and that's not just perception, one of those aren't gnolls.

Not at all, it just means that there is a way out, either severing the link to Fiends, or that link never took place on the other world.

I mean, I get it, we would all love for the default D&D to validate our preferences, but the Developers walking a tightrope trying to be all things to all people is the one way street to bland, tepid, safe, boring.
 


None, but the lore in their new core is now inconsistent with the lore in their campaign settings. Gnolls are practically a different kind of creature in Eberron than they are in the 5.5 MM, for example.
That is certainly true. In these cases, I've been told we're free to continue using everything from the 2014 version of 5th edition, and therefore that makes it all backward compatible.
 

As long as we have "humanoid" opponents to fight such as veterans, toughs (aka thugs), evokers, or whatever, there is absolutely no reason IMO to not have drow and orcs as examples of special creatures instead of just "this is a drow guard*" who is absolutely no different from the human guard, orc guard, or whever.

Humanoids (of any species) can have helpless children, etc. who get fireballed just like orcs used to.

It is a pointless change IMO and a better shift would be to enforce alignments and consequences for PCs acting like murder-hobos regardless of the creature. What about young owlbears? Baby beholders? Young remorhaz? or whatever?

What about goblins or trolls or whatever you surrender? What do your PCs do with them? Slaughter them? Let them go? Turn them over to some military force for imprisonment?

Humans, tieflings, dragonborn, dwarves, etc. are all PC races and can be enemy humanoid types, so moving goblins, et al. to fey, gnolls to fiends, etc. so they can escape the "these are people so go ahead and kill them all without remorse" issue is garbage.

If there is a problem, focus on the true problem, and stop trying to gloss it over with other things.

Anyway, that is my rant about it--sorry if it isn't quite coherent.
 


Trending content

Remove ads

Top