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

[FrogReaver]

Well, that's your problem, right there.

If you want a thing, and others don't, you can't just say, "Well I reject your premise, now give me what I want," and expect to succeed. It is a negotiation non-starter.

That premise cannot be openly debated here. About the best that can be done is say I personally reject it, pretty much anything more approaches and quickly crosses what this site considers to be anti inclusive. That’s fine, but can you really expect more in light of that?

Come to the table actually open to some give-and-take, and you might get somewhere. Otherwise, the major source of your disappointments is... your own position.

I think that’s some absolutely terrible advice.

I think being willing to listen is fine, but give and take? Not a given.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Well, that's your problem, right there.

If you want a thing, and others don't, you can't just say, "Well I reject your premise, now give me what I want," and expect to succeed. It is a negotiation non-starter.

Nor can you expect others to try to care about your wants/needs, or want to understand your point of view, if you simply flatly reject theirs. Again, non-starter.

Come to the table actually open to some give-and-take, and you might get somewhere. Otherwise, the major source of your disappointments is... your own position.

If it's meant to be a give and take, then what did the opposing side compromise on? Looks more like they got their way across the board.

 

[Mistwell]

Dang typo. In my opinion the features do not add enough to modify the CR.

We don't know exactly how CR is calculated and I don't see darkvision or bonus action dash adding to it. The relentless endurance is the only thing that I would think could add to CR but the only monster that has something similar would be zombies. Those get a con save when dropped to zero but even those are still a lowly CR 1/4.

I think the Tough entry would stay the same CR for an Orc version of it if you simply replaced Pack Tactics with:

"Orc Traits: Darkvision 120'. You can take the Dash action as a Bonus Action. 1/day you when you are reduced to 0 Hit Points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 Hit Point instead."

But if you wanted both Pack Tactics and Orc Traits I'd increase the CR to 1. That change I think brings it roughly to around the deadliness of a Bugbear Warrior which is also CR 1.

I would have liked something in the MM or DMG that listed all the PC species traits that can be added to an existing MM NPC stat as a replacement or addition and what increased CR would be, if any. I don't think it would have taken much space but would add a meaningful amount to the game.

Example, if you wanted instead a Dwarf Tough:

Dwarf Traits: Darkvision 120', Bonus Action: Tremorsense 30'. Resistance to poison and Advantage to end Poisoned condition. Increase hit points by 1 for each CR of the base creature.

Pretty simple fix, but this stuff should have been in the core books.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Well, that's your problem, right there.

If you want a thing, and others don't, you can't just say, "Well I reject your premise, now give me what I want," and expect to succeed. It is a negotiation non-starter.

Nor can you expect others to try to care about your wants/needs, or want to understand your point of view, if you simply flatly reject theirs. Again, non-starter.

Come to the table actually open to some give-and-take, and you might get somewhere. Otherwise, the major source of your disappointments is... your own position.

I will ask only this:

I am told this change is good or makes sense based on a premise I find to be not true.

Without this premise being true are these good functional changes for the game?

I will not say this ruins the game or makes the game unplayable. But I do not see a good rationale for this from a gameplay perspective. I could be missing something.

 

[Dire Bare]

Hello Folks,

I was just looking over the new MM (2024) and I observed that the Orc and Drow entries were removed from the book and replaced with generic NPC templates. Was this really a good idea? I understand that they are trying to move away from dehumanizing (depersoning might be better because neither are humans) sentient races but is the message that we the players are unable to distinguish between good drow/orcs and bad drow/orcs really the one that should be delivered?

These are two of the most iconic enemy stat blocks in the game. I believe they are far more deserving of space in this book than many of the entries within.

This just comes off as a missed opportunity driven by the desire to be "safe" and do we really need that from the same company that is looking to pump out D&D slot machines?

I'd like to hear your comments on this.

It doesn't bother me, but how I would have handled it is . . .

Do exactly what WotC did, PLUS, 1) included suggestions for modifying those statblocks by species, and 2) include some bespoke drow, orc, etc statblocks in addition to the generic humanoid statblocks.

Best of both worlds!

 

[Dire Bare]

Humanoid lizardfolk and aarakocra still exist, and like all other humanoids are represented by NPC stat blocks. The monster stat blocks represent lizardfolk and aarakocra that have been more heavily affected by the elemental planes than the humanoid versions, and are therefore elementals.

I agree that seems to be the intent, and it is logical but . . . not clearly stated in the new Monster Manual, and it should be. You shouldn't have to watch hours of the dev team talking about each creature category to get this info, it should be clearly stated in the book.

 

[Dire Bare]

Exactly. They trail far behind most other publishers when it comes to handling things like this. Ancestries and Culture was written years ago and they still just went with "species". Their own setting, Eberron, had fantastic ways to change how the "monstrous" races are handled and they ignored it. They're not leading the pack. They're barely following the pack.

I look at it in a similar way to large companies pushing diversity or environmental initiatives . . . often, there are individuals within those companies passionate about helping their company become a more responsible corporate citizen, but the company as an entity only really cares about how these initiatives affect public perception and ultimately profit. So these efforts are often hamstrung and ineffective and come across as insincere.

I feel the D&D team probably would love to push the game further on issues of race and culture . . . but are hamstrung by the corporate need to not rock the boat too much. Almost all of WotC's efforts on depicting race and culture in D&D have come across as half-baked, while smaller publishers run circles around them.

But hey, they are moving in the right direction, even if slowly. I can't wait to see how these issues are handled in the 2034 rules revisions!

Or maybe I should be excited to read Ben Riggs' histories of the development of 5E in a decade or two . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

Basically, they've adopted just enough of a more sensitive approach to make me really uncomfortable with ever coming back to the game.

Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

The 2024 rules fall flat in a few places, and this is one of them for many . . . for opposing reasons!

But overall, still a solid update to the game, a game already pretty darn solid!

 

[Umbran]

That premise cannot be openly debated here.

Ah, but you see, actually debating the premise is not required. Because this is ultimately not about the absolute truth value of the premise. This is about working with people.

I think that’s some absolutely terrible advice.

I think being willing to listen is fine, but give and take? Not a given.

If you are not ready to compromise, then the other guy has no reason to give you anything you want.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree that seems to be the intent, and it is logical but . . . not clearly stated in the new Monster Manual, and it should be. You shouldn't have to watch hours of the dev team talking about each creature category to get this info, it should be clearly stated in the book.

I agree!