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

[cbwjm]

Anyone want to share this imagery because frankly I have no clue what people are talking about...?

This is the pic that I've seen. There may be others but this one really makes me think that the orcs shown are fantasy Mexican cowboys, they even have chaps.

It's otherwise a good picture, I think the artist is pretty good.

 

[ezo]

This is the pic that I've seen. There may be others but this one really makes me think that the orcs shown are fantasy Mexican cowboys, they even have chaps.
View attachment 395371

I guess then my question would be what is wrong with a fantasy cowboy? (In general, particularly I find it extremely awful but I prefer medieval fantasy.)

I don't personally see what necessarily makes these Mexican in flavor, but their could be something of the historical culture I am not aware of? I've seen cowboys of all sort of nationalities in North American art which these could represent.

 

[cbwjm]

I guess then my question would be what is wrong with a fantasy cowboy? (In general, particularly I find it extremely awful but I prefer medieval fantasy.)

I don't personally see what necessarily makes these Mexican in flavor, but their could be something of the historical culture I am not aware of? I've seen cowboys of all sort of nationalities in North American art which these could represent.

Nothing is wrong with fantasy cowboys, I'm just saying that's what they look like. I've only had limited exposure to cowboys since I'm from NZ so it's entirely possible that there are others that these could appear to be like, but when I saw the pic Mexican was what I thought of.

 

[Mistwell]

I am seeing a problem, now that I have the MM in hand, with the removal of Drow and Orc from the MM which I didn't see before I had it in hand.

Yes, there is a conversion table. Yes, Orc references Tough, and Drow references Priest Acolyte. I thought that would be fine.

It's not. Even if you assume the removal of some species abilities from NPC ones because "they're not the same rules" there remains a meaningful flaw. Each of these species inherently has darkvision. Regardless of differing rules for PCs and NPCs, they definitely both have darkvision as part of the nature of the drow and orc. All descriptions of them, all history of them, all background for them, everything in not just the old books but also the 2024 books very clearly says they both have darkvision. I don't care to what range, but they definitely both can see in the dark.

But the conversion entries do not have darkvision.

And sure I can add it. But I shouldn't have to add it. Much like every other part of the MM entry, it's supposed to include the basics of that thing. And it simply doesn't for orc and drow. A basic thing is clearly missing.

They didn't even "need" separate entries for these two species in the MM. But they darn well should have had a note in the conversion table on how to add in specific species elements to NPC entries. Do I add "Adrenaline Rush" to an Orc Tough or not? Do I add "Relentless Endurance" to an orc Tough or not? If I do, does their CR go up? How the frack is this supposed to work?

This is a pretty basic element missing from the MM, or the DMG or SOMEWHERE. If I am converting old adventures I am definitely going to need a basic drow and orc at some point. When they say you can "run an old adventure with the new rules" and I try to just replace an Orc with the Tough entry it's not going to work. Suddenly my Orc doesn't see in the dark, in their lair which is intentionally dark.

This seems like a pretty basic mistake. Like in WOTC's attempt to avoid issues with Orcs and Drow they dug a hole for themselves that's very glaring in actual table practice. Like someone said "Let's just punt and figure this out later." Only later should be right now.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Then let's by all means go back to the 1e MM where humans, dwarves, elves, etc. had entries and were there to also be enemies. I'd rather include separate entries for all of those than remove iconic enemies the way that they did.

 

[MGibster]

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?

I know others might not agree with me, but I just don't think D&D is that kind of game. And by that, I mean it's designed for heroic fantasy adventuring rather than morally grey quagmires where, as Gygax put it, player characters need to worry that "nits make lice." i.e. Most scenarios these days aren't going to have children of any species in a position where the PCs can just slaughter them wholesale.

Edit: Okay, at the very least they're not making scenarios these days where the PCs are expected to slaughter the children of any species.

 

[Stormonu]

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.

If it's all "backwards compatible", that leave me little reason to move forward in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

You're missing the point. The point isn't what settings they own, or if they care about settings that they don't own. The point is that in one of the settings that they DO own, they did a better job of handling the "issue" than they did in the MM. They took steps backwards from their own position for 5.5e. That's the point.

 

[Weiley31]

So where are the drow of Lolth, duergar of Asmodeus, and the orcs of Gruumsh?

Somewhere in the Underdark.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then let's by all means go back to the 1e MM where humans, dwarves, elves, etc. had entries and were there to also be enemies. I'd rather include separate entries for all of those than remove iconic enemies the way that they did.

I am completely on board with this. Worked just fine through 2e.