Wandering Monsters: Orcs and Gnolls

[Minigiant]

Dungeon Command tactics should be completely different. You're not going to have an orc or gnoll horde that works the same with 3 minis as you will in 5e.
A RTS game suffers the same problems, as TTRPG tactics do not translate.

A single line on their style of battle is more than sufficient, something on their personality in battle or approach to combat.

The intent of the document is look and feel. They're concerned about it looking like their IP more than anything and not, for example, being the warcraft shamanistic orcs.

But isn't Look and Feel tactical too? There isn't a single direct sentence on what orcs do it battle. With a simple "Orcs prefer to charge in with surprise and deal a devastating blow to the enemy from the start" you can enforce the orcish look and feel. Dungeon Command orcs would focus on going to the front line and causing quick havoc. A D&DRTS would have orcs be a rush faction with fast powerful units. Or even a fighting game where the orc goes past Ryu and Ken style and goes straight to Akuma.

But here I got nothing directly and have to infer almost everything.

 

[tlantl]

But if the design team comes out with an army of gnoll soulfknives and psywarriors (The CG Purple Spot Clan of my campaign world) or have core orcs as spear snipers (The Deadeye Orcs of my campaign world) you'd complain that they aren;t orcish and gollish enough.

The Deadeye Orcs are "good at offense", when they "hit you, you’re going to feel it", "use big weapons such as greataxes or greatclubs", and are "known for their fury in combat, launching a ferocious and violent assault against their foes"

But they chuck giant spears and rocks from high ground with screaming "Melee is for suckers. You deserve to die." in Orcish.

Then they wouldn't be doing their job, would they.

The article specifically mentions that these outlines are to be used in all of the products being released by the company. From what I get from this is that the design team responsible for fleshing out the actual game mechanics will have to follow the outline pretty closely.

Perhaps the real details are included in the different documents but were omitted in the public article for space and proprietary reasons.

 

[Jester David]

But isn't Look and Feel tactical too? There isn't a single direct sentence on what orcs do it battle. With a simple "Orcs prefer to charge in with surprise and deal a devastating blow to the enemy from the start" you can enforce the orcish look and feel. Dungeon Command orcs would focus on going to the front line and causing quick havoc. A D&DRTS would have orcs be a rush faction with fast powerful units. Or even a fighting game where the orc goes past Ryu and Ken style and goes straight to Akuma.

But here I got nothing directly and have to infer almost everything.

You mean like:
"They’re good at offense—when an orc hits you, you’re going to feel it. "
"They’re not so good at defense. They rely on their sheer ferocity to keep them going despite their wounds"
"In combat, it’s every orc for itself, with each orc more interested in earning personal glory than in securing victory for the group."

"They both might have champions who fly into berserker rage during combat, and they wear hides and scavenged pieces of armor."
"They have accomplished archers, partly because of that high Dexterity. Gnolls are cowardly, so they’re apt to flee from a fight that turns against them. "

 

[Minigiant]

Then they wouldn't be doing their job, would they.

The article specifically mentions that these outlines are to be used in all of the products being released by the company. From what I get from this is that the design team responsible for fleshing out the actual game mechanics will have to follow the outline pretty closely.

Perhaps the real details are included in the different documents but were omitted in the public article for space and proprietary reasons.

I understand there no being any mechanics. I don't understand not having any descriptions of a orc/gnoll battle.

You mean like:
"They’re good at offense—when an orc hits you, you’re going to feel it. "
"They’re not so good at defense. They rely on their sheer ferocity to keep them going despite their wounds"
"In combat, it’s every orc for itself, with each orc more interested in earning personal glory than in securing victory for the group."

"They both might have champions who fly into berserker rage during combat, and they wear hides and scavenged pieces of armor."
"They have accomplished archers, partly because of that high Dexterity. Gnolls are cowardly, so they’re apt to flee from a fight that turns against them. "

Still little description of what common orcs/gnolls do in combat. Little tactical info for the design team to make tactical mechanics. Or for another third party or in house team who needs to capture the orcish/gnollish who needs in battle info. There are ways where a team could follow this article but the end result not feel very orcish or gnollish.

 

[PinkRose]

I would have liked to have seen more description.
Such as the fixation with eye art and removal of eyes and eye patches.
Or the shape of their noses. Pig nosed or no nose or what? Fangs, No fangs? etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

My point was the article was very strategic (hierarchy leadership, connection, habitat) and heavy on raw stats (abilities scores, weapons, armor) but it left the design team with little to go on for tactics obviously (Orcs like to charge at enemies, hyena like to pull one enemy away and all focus on them). So they might put Orcs in hindering heavy armor or not give Gnolls a flanking bonus.

I also would like to add that I don't think that every single bit of a monster's concept needs to have a mechanic representation... especially combat tactics!

I mean, e.g. a monster that fights to the death and a monster that flees when things go badly don't necessarily need to have mechanical differences, the difference in how the DM plays them in combat may be enough.

 

[Tovec]

<snip>

First, marry me

Second, that was great. I have a few quibbles about orcs and gnolls but nothing significant. You should be writing the article, as this made a lot more sense than the WotC version.

Third, STOLEN. I'm SO using these interpretations, if not these outright descriptions for my game. I'll incorporate those quibbles and be golden.

Fourth, "for the LULZ" slays me.

Fifth, please keep this up for all the monster articles, show us what a better version looks like.

Sixth, care to take a crack at other races BEFORE the article gets there so I can similarly steal those for my game?

 

[Minigiant]

I also would like to add that I don't think that every single bit of a monster's concept needs to have a mechanic representation... especially combat tactics!

I mean, e.g. a monster that fights to the death and a monster that flees when things go badly don't necessarily need to have mechanical differences, the difference in how the DM plays them in combat may be enough.

True. But if a monster does have a specific tactic ingrained in its concept, then that tactic should be allowed at least if not supported. If a monster flees in badly situation, then the game as to allow fleeing at least even if the monster doesn't get a fleeing bonus. But the bonus helps.

Every word mentioned in the description adds to the monster's iconic image.The fact that you can find "cowardly" but not "flank" in the Gnoll section but can find "flank" in the 1 paragraph SRD description is just silly.

Also gnolls groups are clans, not packs.

 

[delericho]

I thought the article, for what it was, was broadly fine. I would have liked a bit about gnolls fighting in packs, but that's a minor thing.

However, what really struck me about the article, and the exercise as a whole, is that it's largely unnecessary. It could be replaced with eight words:

Orcs: See "Monstrous Manual".

Gnolls: See "Monstrous Manual".

They already have good descriptions of the basic humanoids, including long sections on descriptions, tactics, ecology and society. They aren't going to significantly change these, due to their "reunite the clans" goal for 5e. So what's the point in reinventing the wheel here?

And the same goes for huge numbers of monsters, including the overwhelming majority of those that will appear in the core game. The 2nd Edition Monstrous Compendia are really good sources for this kind of thing - use them!

 

[jrowland]

That said I may not know what I am talking about, Connorsrpg may be right with me confusing goblinoids with orcs!

Too funny. That is one of my favorite Dragon Covers. IIRC they are orcs, and one of the reasons I loved the cover was that ferocity and defiance despite the odds portrayed...I've run orcs that way ever since. There was an artistic direction in that era that was far from consistent. Look at the black and white images of orcs in products like "Scourge of the Slavelords"....

If it wasn't in a box, in the basement, behind a billion other boxes, I'd pull it out and verify. But I am pretty sure they are orcs.