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

[AnotherGuy]

Then I really don't get your issue.

I think you misunderstood my original post. The arguments were that roles are more useful, that narration is what is needed to differentiate races, that ppl don't need a statblock for a drow guard, an orc guard, a duergar guard.. etc

It's like posters suddenly suffered from 4e statblock amnesia (4e was praised for its MM), or they erroneously believed that 5e (2014) only had guards or same-styled descriptors - the post you commented on reflected that each race had specific descriptors statblocks which were evocative and fleshed out species with these statblocks.

The only argument that I would accept is that perhaps they are releasing a humanoids monster stat book later but given how badly they seemed to have fumbled this MM (from other threads) and how this is very much The Lore is Lava edition I have no faith in that.

Anyways given this and other threads I'm pretty confident in that I won't be investing in this MM. There is too much work being passed on to the DM and there is a seemingly lack of leadership/direction when it comes to Lore. Make them evil or don't make them evil, put a sidebar to cater for the otherside. It's simple. It's a game. Let's move on.
WotC were not responsible for writing up the Codex Sinaiticus or the US Declaration of Independence but they certainly made it look difficult.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think you misunderstood my original post. The arguments were that roles are more useful, that narration is what is needed to differentiate races, that ppl don't need a statblock for a drow guard, an orc guard, a duergar guard.. etc

It's like posters suddenly suffered from 4e statblock amnesia (4e was praised for its MM), or they erroneously believed that 5e (2014) only had guards or same-styled descriptors - the post you commented on reflected that each race had specific descriptors statblocks which were evocative and fleshed out species with these statblocks.

The only argument that I would accept is that perhaps they are releasing a humanoids monster stat book later but given how badly they seemed to have fumbled this MM (from other threads) and how this is very much The Lore is Lava edition I have no faith in that.

Anyways given this and other threads I'm pretty confident in that I won't be investing in this MM. There is too much work being passed on to the DM and there is a seemingly lack of leadership/direction when it comes to Lore. Make them evil or don't make them evil, put a sidebar to cater for the otherside. It's simple. It's a game. Let's move on.
WotC were not responsible for writing up the Codex Sinaiticus or the US Declaration of Independence but they certainly made it look difficult.

I’m not buying it either but this ain’t the reason why.

 

[Remathilis]

What happened to the Orc Drudge, Orc War Chief, Orc Eye of Gruumsh, Orog, Orc Blade of Ilneval, Orc Claw of Luthic, Orc Raider, Orc Bloodrager, Orc Berserker...etc?

Not needed. Orcs can be assassins, infantry, priests, berserkers, scouts, pirates, and toughs, just like the other nine species in the PHB.

 

[Remathilis]

The humanoids races had particular stat blocks with specific descriptors separate to the roles at the back of the MM. With this new MM those particular roles specific to race per their stat blocks are no longer there. It requires more work for the DM. Also those descriptors were evocative, creative inspiration.

Point me to the "half-elf" stat block. Or the "dragonborn" or "tiefling" stat block. I guess those races couldn't be encountered in the game because they didn't have stat blocks in the Monster Manual.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Not needed. Orcs can be assassins, infantry, priests, berserkers, scouts, pirates, and toughs, just like the other nine species in the PHB.

So I would accept all that (roles + race) along with
(1) A species entry, sidebar for either side
(2) A few specialized entries that were species specific.
(3) A CR adjustment for the species if necessary

What you have without that is half-assed attempt.

 

[Remathilis]

So I would accept all that (roles + race) along with
(1) A species entry, sidebar for either side
(2) A few specialized entries that were species specific.
(3) A CR adjustment for the species if necessary

What you have without that is half-assed attempt.

I agree on 1. I think 3 is not needed as few, if any, species traits are strong enough to influence CR, and I see absolutely no need for 2. except for named NPCs in settings and modules.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Point me to the "half-elf" stat block. Or the "dragonborn" or "tiefling" stat block. I guess those races couldn't be encountered in the game because they didn't have stat blocks in the Monster Manual.

The half-elves are not a species on their own. I'm not sure if Tiefling are either. I'm not familiar enough with dragonborn but I'll concede that they should have an entry. The drow duergar and orcs have a history as being obstacles and the enemies for PCs. And not just for humans, but for elves and dwarves.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I agree on 1. I think 3 is not needed as few, if any, species traits are strong enough to influence CR, and I see absolutely no need for 2. except for named NPCs in settings and modules.

I kind like 2. Drow wouldn't have an orc Bloodrager or Eye of Gruumsh like Orcs wouldn't have a Priest of Lolth.

 

[AlViking]

People are sure expecting a LOT from one Monster Manual and are lifting examples of stat blocks that are typically found in other places (Volo's guides, adventures, etc.)

We had a whopping 3 orcs in the 2014 monster manual. A bog standard orc replaced by a Tough , an Eye of Gruumsh replaced by Priest at CR 2 and an Orc War Chief replaced by a "Tough Boss". Yes the orcs had slightly different capabilities than some other humanoids at the same level but I don't see anything that makes them stand out or really any unifying theme. I rarely use orcs but I've used the orc stat block for generic fighters or clerics plenty of times. The 2014 legacy priest were a bit more flexible and relied a bit more on spell slots to increase damage if they were in melee than the eye of Gruumsh but there really wasn't that big of a difference to me in play.

Basically we had orcs but unless the DM described them as an orc or you had details memorized you wouldn't have realized you were fighting an orc or a dwarf.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'd like to hear your comments on this.

I don't mind it at all. And I think a lot of people are making themselves upset over something that they have already been doing for years.

It has always been the same process for placing monsters in an adventure: pick the stat block, add racial adjustments (if any), and you're done. I don't need separate stat blocks for Drow and Human Priests any more than I need separate subclasses for Drow and Human Clerics.

EDIT:

As others have already pointed out in various places, when you look at D&D that had species specific statblocks for humanoids, they didn't vary much anyway. They were already vanilla.

What they've provided, instead, are ROLE specific statblocks. I find that more useful, as a GM, than species-specific.

Yes. This.