Orcs and Drow in new MM

You do know that Menzoberranzan, House Baenre, Lolth and all it's chaotic and evil greatness does still exist right? Just because they are finally acknowledging that not all Drow are inherently evil biologicaly doesn't mean that evil Drow doesn't exist. For Drow society, the majority still worship Lolth and Vhaerun. All WotC did was acknowledge that biology doesn't automatically make you evil. 

And yes. This is coming from someone who has loved and played Drow ever since they came into the scene back when they were originally created for Greyhawk.

There's some value to adding having advice for adding templates (species and culture) to NPCs; the problem with just adding a template without further rules is that it can produce quite large difficulty changes (for example, having your fire giant goliath warrior infantry hitting for an extra 1d10 fire damage is a great way to produce a TPK). I started putting together some templates over in house rules but it's something that should really have a bit more DM assistance.

As far as orcs and drow go, you can safely add the drow species template to most NPCs, adding dancing lights isn't going to break the power budget, but adding adrenaline rush and relentless endurance to CR 1/8 mooks puts them pretty close to CR 1/4.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from Ashla_Mason >>

Quote from Greg07151 >>

Quote from Elgate >>

Maybe there could have been better guidelines on how to do so, or perhaps a side box with common variants such as 'Fiend Cultist- Priestess of Lolth', 

 Its just really a shame to take iconic baddies like the Priestess of Lolth, immortalized in the Drizzt novels, and have to reduced it to a generic stat block that captures none of the essence.

Honestly the 2024 Monster Manual is unusable without the 2014 content.

I really hope they do a lot better with the 2030 version.

 

 

 Beyond this, I'm going to make a really bold and/or controversial statement with this: The whole evil society is what made Drow interesting as a race.

Because now they're just... elves with a different skin tone and innate magic.

 
Once again, you are confusing society for biology.

You can still have an evil society of Drow.  They are evil because their society has made them that way. What has been changed: They are now evil because of their society, not evil because they are biologically evil.

This actually leads to better stories - you can now explore why their society evolved in a way that would be considered “evil,” as opposed to the eugenicist belief that “some races are just inherently evil because it is baked into their DNA.” 

 We already had those though. Like there were plenty of them to the point where I'd almost argue that the Menzoberranzan drow were the minority.

Also this whole thing with drow kind of falls apart when you consider that they double revered with goblins now being literal manifestations of evil.

Quote from Portential>>

Quote from jl8e>>

Quote from Greg07151>>

 Its just really a shame to take iconic baddies like the Priestess of Lolth, immortalized in the Drizzt novels, and have to reduced it to a generic stat block that captures none of the essence.

You know where I expect to see them?

In the upcoming Forgotten Realms sourcebooks.

That Drow culture is entirely a FR thing. Greyhawk Drow are at least a little different. Eberron Drow are a lot different. Drow in my campaign are different along a different axis. Etc.

Do you really want to buy another book to get monsters that should been in the monster manual in the first place?

  Most DM's use their own worlds to make it easier to bring in outside content and maps.  I'm not buying a Forgotten Realms book to get a monster stat, when I'm not going to use the lore. 

Quote from Ashla_Mason >>

 Beyond this, I'm going to make a really bold and/or controversial statement with this: The whole evil society is what made Drow interesting as a race.

Because now they're just... elves with a different skin tone and innate magic.

 If you find "all Drow are innately evil" to be "interesting," by all means reinstate it at your table. Plenty of us didn't, including WotC themselves.

A prominent Drow society like Menzoberranzan can still be quite evil, and it can even be the source of the reputation that even surface Drow who are not participants in that society have to rail against (or embrace, as they choose), without introducing thorny concepts like biologically destined morality to the printed game's official products.

I think having races and cultures with a strong identity (even one which I dont agree with or find objectionable) is more inherently interesting then ones that don't because it actually offers a lot of opportunity for inspiration and such for both players and GMs; it's frankly my biggest problem with the player options from both mord's and the 2024 PHB: if you strip away any references to physical characteristics they're pretty much entirely interchangable with how they're described.

I get that this isn't a popular take around here and that WotC keeps screaming "setting agnostic" at the top of it's lungs whenever issues like this get pointed out but they're also consistently going back to established settings when releasing materials and also setting themselves up for a ton of work when it comes to establish the extent settings and the races/cultures therein.

Quote from Ashla_Mason >>

I think having races and cultures with a strong identity (even one which I dont agree with or find objectionable) is more inherently interesting then ones that don't because it actually offers a lot of opportunity for inspiration and such for both players and GMs; it's frankly my biggest problem with the player options from both mord's and the 2024 PHB: if you strip away any references to physical characteristics they're pretty much entirely interchangable with how they're described.

I get that this isn't a popular take around here and that WotC keeps screaming "setting agnostic" at the top of it's lungs whenever issues like this get pointed out but they're also consistently going back to established settings when releasing materials and also setting themselves up for a ton of work when it comes to establish the extent settings and the races/cultures therein.

 What you may find interesting, others find to be harmful and this game is meant to be enjoyed by everyone. If you want that stuff in your game, no one is going to kick down your door and make you stop, but others should have the opportunity to play without having to be reminded of the game's controversial and painful roots.

Quote from Ashla_Mason >>

I think having races and cultures with a strong identity (even one which I dont agree with or find objectionable) is more inherently interesting then ones that don't

 These two things are not the same.

Cultures should absolutely have a strong identity. It's what makes them a Culture. 

(Well, that or hyperintelligent starships with whimsical names.)

Races/species with the same sort of strong identity are weird. The idea that every single member of this species, regardless of how separated the populations are, belongs to the same culture, breaks verisimilitude hard. It requires an explanation, and those explanations typically range from unsatisfying to downright creepy.

Quote from Ashla_Mason >>

I think having races and cultures with a strong identity (even one which I dont agree with or find objectionable) is more inherently interesting then ones that don't because it actually offers a lot of opportunity for inspiration and such for both players and GMs; it's frankly my biggest problem with the player options from both mord's and the 2024 PHB: if you strip away any references to physical characteristics they're pretty much entirely interchangable with how they're described.

1) If you consider one-dimensionally evil Drow to be "strong identity" then you and I have very different definitions of that term.

2) The only way you could consider every species in those books to be "entirely interchangeable" is by throwing out not just their physical characteristics, but their game mechanics and narrative descriptions as well. Which to me reads like saying "if I take this cake recipe they gave me and remove all the flour, eggs, milk, and sugar from it, I can't make a cake anymore! Why would WotC do this?"

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >

Thankfully, Wizards is finally doing something about that - and ignoring all the grognards who confuse “remove the immoral politics of Gygax” with “adding politics to the game.” 

Wizards is only doing something about it because the younger generations keep, rightfully, complaining about it. The game should evolve as our society does. Wizards, however, aren't the good guys in this. They only did something about because they were called out on it. They then moved to "All farmers are tough" - presumably because they don't think farmers can play music or would learn Druid spells unless the DM thinks they would. They moved from race to profession because they don't really care about it unless they think it creates an image problem for them.

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

 Oddly there is really only one person that continues to bring up the controversial and painful roots of the game at every given chance, why is Hitler part of the discussion what does how sexy he may have been to someone have to do with this thread, or even D&D?

It is odd that Gygax is even still discussed as wotc has distanced themselves from him, you'd think they would prefer it was a sleeping dog that people would just let die.

 How many voices would it take for you to care?

I can only speak for myself, but I don't care about Gygax or the game's roots. I care about what they're doing now and why.

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

I can only speak for myself, but I don't care about Gygax or the game's roots. I care about what they're doing now and why.

 Same.

I'm a fan of the change as well, and I think it was a design choice just as much as a cultural one.  Even if you did want to run orcs as villains (which is totally fine - everyone should be able to tell their own stories), what were the chances that the handful of orc stat blocks were going to meet your needs?  Now, you can use Warrior, Tough and Berserker and none of them would feel out of place at all.  And each of them does different things and present different challenges to the players.

But maybe in your game orcs aren't like that - maybe they're pirates in your game.  Or knights.  Or maybe the elves are the berserkers.  Or maybe you don't want species to be a central theme at all and all of your humanoid enemies are a mix of various species.

It just gives a lot more flexibility and raises the chances that more of these stat blocks are actually useful to more DMs.

Quote from Portential >>

That is true from a modern perspective when you have food, shelter and safety available.  You have many options.  Now go back to a time when humans, orcs, dwarves and tabaxi were not the top of the food chain.  Your survival options start to limit.

Which still has absolutely nothing to do with having a strong identity for a species; similarity is driven by environment, economics, and technology.

Quote from Portential >>

Typically the barbarian at the gates, the Visigoths, the Francs, the Goths, the Timurids etc and drow, orc, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, ogres oh my are their stand ins.

'Barbarian' is about culture (and just being Not From Around Here), not about race -- and it should be obvious that all of your real world examples are humans.

Quote from Portential >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Ashla_Mason >>

I think having races and cultures with a strong identity (even one which I dont agree with or find objectionable) is more inherently interesting then ones that don't because it actually offers a lot of opportunity for inspiration and such for both players and GMs; it's frankly my biggest problem with the player options from both mord's and the 2024 PHB: if you strip away any references to physical characteristics they're pretty much entirely interchangable with how they're described.

I get that this isn't a popular take around here and that WotC keeps screaming "setting agnostic" at the top of it's lungs whenever issues like this get pointed out but they're also consistently going back to established settings when releasing materials and also setting themselves up for a ton of work when it comes to establish the extent settings and the races/cultures therein.

 What you may find interesting, others find to be harmful and this game is meant to be enjoyed by everyone. If you want that stuff in your game, no one is going to kick down your door and make you stop, but others should have the opportunity to play without having to be reminded of the game's controversial and painful roots.

 

And what you find harmful and to be enjoyed what you consider meant to be enjoyed by everyone, isn't to everyone you are finding that out in this thread.  There is no monolith on this and it gets worse when you are dealing with people familiar with the content and have played with those designers.   You need to have villain's and foils in the game.  And having various drow, orcs, goblins etc being evil fits that role.  Don't get me wrong, the current writing direction by D&D is aimed at 8 year old and above in my opinion so trying to be samey with everything could be useful when playing with children, which is how I adjust lore when DM'ing for kids.  As to take up to the 8yr and up content, so far less than 4M characters have been built in D&D Beyond for 2024 and that is very low.  I'm running 5E games at conventions and online, and generally have a wait list.  I'm running Age of Worms (3.5E content) and I have 5 people waiting to get in the main group.  No complaints on using original lore, they ask to bring their friends.  Typically half of the new players become DM's using older content as well.  This is anecdotal, but it is what it is.  

If you really want to make a plea to authority (essentially WotC agrees with me - really dude?), then I suggest you look at Dungeon Magazine and Dragon magazine and you'll see a lot of current high level designers at Paizo and WotC and read their content, it doesn't agree with your statement you'll find a diversity of opinions.  What you are seeing is an official company line from the marketing department - not from all of the designers, not by a long shot.  Look up Dungeon Magazine 124 for Age of Worms, and look at the designer names on the adventure path and read it the village of Diamond Back.  You can understand a persons views based on what they create.  The  town alone is incredibly well made and would make a small group of people clutch their pearls at gambling, brothel's and drugs oh my.  Plenty of factions, adventure seeds and a good town to take you to level 20.  WotC hasn't written a real town like that for 5E+. 

 You are confusing a few points here, which I am happy to clear up:

Reduction of harm is important.

No one claimed to be an absolute authority.

Villains can exist without harmful stereotypes or without needing to leverage biological determinism.

Furthermore, you misidentified me making a plea to authority (seriously, this was something someone else said) while also making an appeal to tradition?! Setting aside that WotC is the authority on WotC IPs, please make sure you are responding to the person you mean to. Additionally, people are often wiling to compromise on some issues that they might find distasteful just to play the game. Many people have not realized that 'no D&D is better than bad D&D', so your wait lists are virtually meaningless here and would not be commentary on the lore of the games even if that were not the case for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is the anecdotal nature of it, but also because those player's feelings on the content does not serve to erase the feelings that others may have who you may not feel has value.

This is a very confused, if emotional argument. What Paizo says or does is irrelevant to D&D. I am baffled as to why you are including that company in this discussion at all. At the end of the day, WotC made an intentional decision to make their content accessible to more people. Part of this decision necessitated revising content and throwing out some long held and weirdly-coveted ideas, so that those who were previously harmed, as those people define it, felt they were able to play and enjoy this game fully. You can add whatever biological determinism you want to your game - it's your party. But people always matter more than ideas.

Quote from Portential >>

WotC is treating characters and monsters as humans now.  There is little to no difference, what matters now is culture.  Hence why I gave you cultural references to set expectations.  They are telling us now to just use the Knight and call it an Orc now.  Just saying.  So if we are going to be playing a game where everything is humans, then you should take the cultural examples as valid.

This was an argument about whether species should have a strong identity -- i.e. arguing that what 2024 is doing is wrong. You're not going to get very far arguing that 2024 is wrong because 2024 is right.

D&D absolutely needs foes for the PCs to fight. Some groups of enemies will in fact consist primarily of a single species. There's just no reason for the rules to tell the DM what species the enemy should be made up of.

Quote from DraxiusII>>

I'm a fan of the change as well, and I think it was a design choice just as much as a cultural one.  Even if you did want to run orcs as villains (which is totally fine - everyone should be able to tell their own stories), what were the chances that the handful of orc stat blocks were going to meet your needs?  Now, you can use Warrior, Tough and Berserker and none of them would feel out of place at all.  And each of them does different things and present different challenges to the players.

But maybe in your game orcs aren't like that - maybe they're pirates in your game.  Or knights.  Or maybe the elves are the berserkers.  Or maybe you don't want species to be a central theme at all and all of your humanoid enemies are a mix of various species.

It just gives a lot more flexibility and raises the chances that more of these stat blocks are actually useful to more DMs.

 Exactly. Instead of one Orc statblock in the MM we now have 45. The only people who see that as a bad thing seemingly want Orcs to stay one-dimensional in perpetuity.

Quote from Portential >>

Yeah 2024 is wrong by telling people to just add racials essentially to build your own monster based on this stat, it leads to sameness.

 2024 could certainly do with better advice on how to customize stat blocks to create a distinctive flavor for your enemy group, but having dozens of largely duplicate NPC stat blocks is a colossal waste of pages. For CR 1+ creatures, you can generally just add a PC species block and assume it won't significantly affect CR, pretty much the only PC species that will actually warrant a CR change of 1 are Aasimar (blinding radiance is a lot of damage) and Human (if you take Tough as your origin feat and assume it's based on HD, not CR), the only real problem is the CR 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2 mooks.

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

So at what species we stop this are we next going to only have dragons whittled down to their age groups and no colors?

 It would totally be possible to redo dragons as "look up CR on this table to find base stats, then apply this color template", and it would arguably be a better experience for a DM, because currently as a DM you can easily run into the problem of "The story is appropriate to a black dragon, but I need about CR 10 to match the PCs... guess I should reskin a young red dragon?" The only problem with templates is that they don't tell you how to apply a species template, and the low number of templates (a tough plays totally differently from a orc, but that's because one of them has 32 hp and 5 damage, and other has 15 hp and 9 damage, not because one of them is an orc).