Cultures are still there I think they are just in the DMG rather than the monster manual and the DMG is where deciding how your world's cultures and history work belongs. I don't see how it is more generic to have all npc models for all races compared to only 2 or 3 stat blocks for a single race. Like I can make Warcraft style shaman orcs by putting in druid or ranger style npc's if I want. It is much easier to add a "species defining trait" like dark vision to a cultist for an orc worshiper of asmodeus than it is to come up with a dozen stat blocks to represent all the different types of orcs that I may want in my campaign from level 1 to 12.
Yes but for a monster "manual" should it not be more representative than generic? Mabey not every iteration, but not only the generic? It would be a far more useful tool if it had both the generic with a sprinkling of the specific would it not. Then fill in the Uber specific in setting and adventure books? Otherwise the MM becomes insignificant rather than a specialized tome of useless that could just be a side bar in the PHB & DMG which seems to be the direction it is going. It is like wotc just made a better DMG at the expense of the MM. The new cor 3 is, as a whole, not an improvement over 2014, just a reshuffling of the deck that has brought more confusion while being marketed as an improvement especially when the digital character tool has been compromised at the expense of the end users. Thought this edition is proving to be geared towards selling whole books rather than the smorgasbord it was.
It does cover the "generic" in the humanoid section, because their cultures are just as diverse as any other humanoid, be that human, dwarf, halfling or anything else. They have the generic stat block for all the races you want by allowing you to use 40+ stat blocks of various humanoids that can represent each different part of each different species culture. They have MORE options for your orc now than they did before, they have MORE options for your dwarf, your elf, your halfling, your tiefling than you had before because they made more humanoid stat blocks. You are bending over backwards to ignore the extra 50+ stat blocks in this Monster manual compared to the 2014 one including more humanoid stat blocks for ALL playable races as NPC's as well as the diversification of several other monster groups. The change in functionality of D&D Beyond has nothing to do with the books themselves when WOTC designed the books they were always designed to be sold as whole books otherwise they would just make individual buyable pdf's and stat blocks or stat cards for monsters instead of books.
For which group of players the seasoned or the new players (specifically DM's) which is what the DMG and MM are for. This is more an advanced edition than a better beginners edition.
Is it really that "advanced" for a DM to say "I want this Tough to be an Orc with the Orc features, so I'm going to add Adrenaline Rush, Relentless Endurance, and Darkvision to the statblock"? They have everything they need to do that.
And DMs who want to run the Tough as-is and simply say it's an Orc can do that too.
For which group of players the seasoned or the new players (specifically DM's) which is what the DMG and MM are for. This is more an advanced edition than a better beginners edition.
Is it really that "advanced" for a DM to say "I want this Tough to be an Orc with the Orc features, so I'm going to add Adrenaline Rush, Relentless Endurance, and Darkvision to the statblock"? They have everything they need to do that.
And DMs who want to run the Tough as-is and simply say it's an Orc can do that too.
I like that the new video just tells you to do that.
Also, the fact that there will be more stat blocks available in the setting books that are representative of specific cultures of the setting is a nice touch as well.
The lord of the rings roleplay expansion gives a pretty good take on the original orc and this is what I will use. The portrayal here is rather absurd.
I miss the old EVIL drow and the Lolth inspired matriarchal culture. The story of Drizzy breaking away from this was an enjoyable read back in the day.. Disappointed that it's gone from here however no reason not to use the older sources which have many options.
None of that is gone. What is gone is the idea that, as a matter of biology, some things are inherently evil. You can still have evil Drow, evil Drow cultures matriarchal Drow cultures,, and stories of exceptional individuals who break away from their culture. You can still do whatever you want with orcs.
Wizards, however, is not going to make that part of their biology - there is no “evil” genome. And there is good reason for Wizards scaling that back - the “evil as part of their biology” element of D&D was expressly included as a racist trope. Gary Gygax even spoke about this - he was quoted talking about how he was a eugenicist and compared orcs to Native Americans when advocating for genocide. Nothing wrong with Wizards removing the biological politics of a self-proclaimed bigot from the game.
It is not a racist trope though. That is just a misconception This is a game and there is no equivalence in the real world for drow elves or orcs. I am curious where you found those "quotes", because I haven't. The mistake is to make orcs and drow exclusive playable races (or species if you so prefer), not the other way around.
I find it strange that people can't acknowledge that this is a game. In my campaigns, orcs will continue to be evil brutes opposed to the players.
Within the realm of spec-fic in general, exploring the concept of sapient beings who are axiomatically aligned with with concepts such as “good” or “evil” is a common and not inherently flawed trope. But, it does get a lot more iffy when a species whose existence closely mirrors humanity’s is simply stated to be born evil without an explanation why, particularly when other tropes commonly used to indicate a primitive or otherwise developmentally stunted culture appear alongside that first trope. Deliberately or not, that narrative does have a lot of parallels with the specious arguments that have been put forth irl about how X demographic is inherently superior to Y. Now, to a certain degree I will grant that within a typical D&D fantasy setting with its diverse pantheons the “they’re like that because their god made them that way” is a valid explanation, but I can understand why WotC doesn’t want to make that their official narrative for human-equivalent beings since such narratives have also been used irl in the manner I previously described.
Just wanted to point out, the Humanoids video dropped today (well, there's other stuff in it, but humanoids start at 15:30) and it clearly states the designer intent for those who were demanding it. Here's the relevant quote:
Kenreck:
"We have also the humanoid category which has a lot of our NPC statblocks which has already made my life so much easier, just to have that like - okay, I need cultists, we talked about this before, I need pirates, there's a entire pirate category now, Toughs - you know like if you're looking for a tough guy to put up against the the party, uh, this is independent of species or anything else, this is giving you a statblock of like, if this person is a Bruiser this is what you would have in this type of environment. This is so helpful because there's so many different versions of this."
Crawford:
"Now I'd love to pause for a moment on something you said here, and that is these statblocks work for humanoids of any species - so humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, gnomes, and so on and so forth, we have you covered with these statblocks. And then - just as we mentioned in the 2014 books, here again - if a DM wants to flavor any of these statblocks with rules elements from the playable versions of the species, you can always take traits from the Player's Handbook and apply them to these stat blocks. And I encourage also DMs to not only think outside the box where - like, don't fall into the trap of thinking humanoid means human, but also don't get trapped by the names of these statblocks. More than I think any other category in the Monster Manual, the humanoid statblocks, their names are suggestions only. What I do as a DM when I'm looking for humanoid statblocks, I usually am looking at what the stat block does more than I'm looking at the name, and so I might take a Pirate stat block but use it for a rascally noble or a bandit, so I'd say go through all of them look at what they do and as you're doing stat block selection as a DM, consider that you can use these for a whole variety of things, and they also make it easy for you to populate communities of really any humanoid species that you are using in your game. Also, for anyone who eager to see more sort of "species-tailored" humanoid statblocks, people are going to get to see more of that in our setting books that are coming up. So you're going to see that in the Forgotten Realms product for example - in that setting the malevolent Drow of Menzoberranzan are a important part of that setting, and so they get their own stat blocks in that product, and this is really true of all the creature categories in the Monster Manual. This is your massive starting toybox of monsters that are usable anywhere in the Multiverse, and then the bestiaries in our setting products, that's then where we can provide you versions of things tailored to the cultures and histories of our different worlds."
Two main takeaways:
1) If there was any doubt that their intent was for you to take a humanoid statblock and apply species traits to it (if you want the statblocks to vary by species), consider that quashed. Crawford explicitly stated that's what they had in mind.
2) These statblocks are fully intended to be generic NPCs that can fit anywhere in the Multiverse. But for those who really do want Evil Orc and Evil Drow statblocks, those are still coming, just in setting-specific material where they can be properly placed in context. The example he gave was that there will be Evil Drow in the Forgotten Realms book, but those Drow are evil because they live in Menzoberranzan and serve Lolth, not merely because they are Drow.
1) If there was any doubt that their intent was for you to take a humanoid statblock and apply species traits to it (if you want the statblocks to vary by species), consider that quashed. Crawford explicitly stated that's what they had in mind.
It would be nice if the DMG or MM would say so (I will say that the humanoid stat blocks are CR-appropriate without any species traits, so adding combat-relevant species traits may be a problem).
1) If there was any doubt that their intent was for you to take a humanoid statblock and apply species traits to it (if you want the statblocks to vary by species), consider that quashed. Crawford explicitly stated that's what they had in mind.
It would be nice if the DMG or MM would say so (I will say that the humanoid stat blocks are CR-appropriate without any species traits, so adding combat-relevant species traits may be a problem).
It is a nice piece of info that is buried in a video called New Constructs blah with only 16k views. So basically only a few hard core players will ever hear it. It should have been in the monster manual.
I appreciate his advice of "ignore the name Tough" and just look for mechanics and CR that meets the need of the villain|boss|baddie you want.
And I am excited that Drow stuff is coming, I love playing with the stats to see who is stronger, the Drow elite warriors like Zaknafein and Drizzt versus the priestesses vs the mages. Drawing up and simulating battles with the houses of Menzoberranzan is just a lot of fun. I would really like to see Drizzt, Jarlaaxle and Artemis with new 2024 high level 5e stats probably around level 16.
The DMG does go into it under Creating a Creature.
Traits
You can add traits to a creature’s stat block to communicate aspects of the creature’s nature. See the Creature Traits list for sample traits.
Then goes on to give some examples. It doesn't come right out and say "Add species traits" but I guess that is what people need in order to know that they can add traits to make the NPCs fit the desired species.
Also the NPC section refers you to the Creating a Creature section
Choose a stat block from the Monster Manual to represent the NPC’s game statistics. You don’t need to do this if you don’t expect the NPC to engage in combat or use any special abilities (such as casting spells). You can customize the stat block using the guidelines under “Creating a Creature” in this chapter to better reflect the NPC you have in mind.
It would be nice if the DMG or MM would say so (I will say that the humanoid stat blocks are CR-appropriate without any species traits, so adding combat-relevant species traits may be a problem).
1) The DMG does say so (thanks Lia for providing the quote.)
2) They do explicitly warn you against adding traits that increase the creature's HP, grant THP, or increase the creature's damage. You can still do so of course.
The mistake is to make orcs and drow exclusive playable races (or species if you so prefer), not the other way around.
If you want to ban orcs and drow from being playable and turn them into villainous caricatures at your table feel free. The books don't have to follow your lead when the rest of us clearly don't want that though.
1) The DMG does say so (thanks Lia for providing the quote.)
The DMG says no such thing. It gives examples... none of which are species. In practice, most species are rounding errors, but if you turn your guards into dragonborn, goliath (anything but hill), human (depending on feat), or orc, the result will generally be about CR 1/4.
It would be nice if the DMG or MM would say so (I will say that the humanoid stat blocks are CR-appropriate without any species traits, so adding combat-relevant species traits may be a problem).
1) The DMG does say so (thanks Lia for providing the quote.)
2) They do explicitly warn you against adding traits that increase the creature's HP, grant THP, or increase the creature's damage. You can still do so of course.
The mistake is to make orcs and drow exclusive playable races (or species if you so prefer), not the other way around.
If you want to ban orcs and drow from being playable and turn them into villainous caricatures at your table feel free. The books don't have to follow your lead when the rest of us clearly don't want that though.
So basically only a few hard core players will ever hear it. It should have been in the monster manual.
It's in the DMG as multiple people have said now. The expectation is that DMs read that, especially if they plan on modifying the game.
Those "multiple people" are just people copying each other. Unlike others I have actually read those pages and they are an incredibly bland piece of information just telling you generic instructions on how to create a creature. Completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Let me know if the video goes over 500k, then you have something.
The DMG says no such thing. It gives examples... none of which are species. In practice, most species are rounding errors, but if you turn your guards into dragonborn, goliath (anything but hill), human (depending on feat), or orc, the result will generally be about CR 1/4.
1) Species Traits are Traits.
2) Uh... It's a good thing they explicitly warned you about traits that add damage then, isn't it? On that page? In the book?
Those "multiple people" are just people copying each other. Unlike others I have actually read those pages and they are an incredibly bland piece of information just telling you generic instructions on how to create a creature.
In my campaigns, orcs will continue to be evil brutes opposed to the players.
This is why this is not an issue. You can still do that. So what this comes off as is "I play it this way and I'm mad that everyone else isn't told to play it this way!"
For people mad about lack of drow culture... how many books do you need? There are already hundreds if not thousands out there. A book detailing drow society doesn't need a "D&D 2024" brand on it to be useable in a modern game. I'd rather see new stuff than reprints of material that is already widely known/available. Did you know you can run Dark Sun for 5e? The D&D police will not break down your door for using old material for your campaign settings.
Which brings me to my main point, which is that stats should comprise roughly 1% of how a particular culture/species feels at the table. This is a role-playing game and there is not stat for "mean" or "greedy" or "conniving" or "innocent." Any DM worth their salt should be able to make an encounter with savage bandits feel extremely different from an encounter with disciplined soldiers or insane cultists even if those characters just have a basic-ass stat block limited to attributes and a sword they can swing. Having the word evil at the top of the stat block literally does nothing. It's up to you to portray that. That is how it's always been and that is why this argument is meaningless.
This is why this is not an issue. You can still do that. So what this comes off as is "I play it this way and I'm mad that everyone else isn't told to play it this way!"
For people mad about lack of drow culture... how many books do you need? There are already hundreds if not thousands out there. A book detailing drow society doesn't need a "D&D 2024" brand on it to be useable in a modern game. I'd rather see new stuff than reprints of material that is already widely known/available. Did you know you can run Dark Sun for 5e? The D&D police will not break down your door for using old material for your campaign settings.
Exactly, and I'll add - they DID promise us more Drow culture in the next FR book, which will include Menzoberranzan Drow statblocks. That will let them place the "evil Drow" in that book in the proper context - they're evil because they worship an evil goddess and do evil things in her name, not merely because they happen to be Drow.
Which brings me to my main point, which is that stats should comprise roughly 1% of how a particular culture/species feels at the table. This is a role-playing game and there is not stat for "mean" or "greedy" or "conniving" or "innocent." Any DM worth their salt should be able to make an encounter with savage bandits feel extremely different from an encounter with disciplined soldiers or insane cultists even if those characters just have a basic-ass stat block limited to attributes and a sword they can swing. Having the word evil at the top of the stat block literally does nothing. It's up to you to portray that. That is how it's always been and that is why this argument is meaningless.
Not to mention, there are still plenty of statblocks with "evil" at the top if that's all you want.
If the book doesn't have staple D&D foes like Orcs and Drow, then it's a monster manual not worth owning.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
If the book doesn't have staple D&D foes like Orcs and Drow, then it's a monster manual not worth owning.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
Sounds lazy and boring, especially when you could instead just have a variety of different orc and drow type opponents. As we've enjoyed for most of the history of D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It does cover the "generic" in the humanoid section, because their cultures are just as diverse as any other humanoid, be that human, dwarf, halfling or anything else. They have the generic stat block for all the races you want by allowing you to use 40+ stat blocks of various humanoids that can represent each different part of each different species culture. They have MORE options for your orc now than they did before, they have MORE options for your dwarf, your elf, your halfling, your tiefling than you had before because they made more humanoid stat blocks. You are bending over backwards to ignore the extra 50+ stat blocks in this Monster manual compared to the 2014 one including more humanoid stat blocks for ALL playable races as NPC's as well as the diversification of several other monster groups. The change in functionality of D&D Beyond has nothing to do with the books themselves when WOTC designed the books they were always designed to be sold as whole books otherwise they would just make individual buyable pdf's and stat blocks or stat cards for monsters instead of books.
Is it really that "advanced" for a DM to say "I want this Tough to be an Orc with the Orc features, so I'm going to add Adrenaline Rush, Relentless Endurance, and Darkvision to the statblock"? They have everything they need to do that.
And DMs who want to run the Tough as-is and simply say it's an Orc can do that too.
I like that the new video just tells you to do that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Also, the fact that there will be more stat blocks available in the setting books that are representative of specific cultures of the setting is a nice touch as well.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It is not a racist trope though. That is just a misconception This is a game and there is no equivalence in the real world for drow elves or orcs. I am curious where you found those "quotes", because I haven't. The mistake is to make orcs and drow exclusive playable races (or species if you so prefer), not the other way around.
I find it strange that people can't acknowledge that this is a game. In my campaigns, orcs will continue to be evil brutes opposed to the players.
Within the realm of spec-fic in general, exploring the concept of sapient beings who are axiomatically aligned with with concepts such as “good” or “evil” is a common and not inherently flawed trope. But, it does get a lot more iffy when a species whose existence closely mirrors humanity’s is simply stated to be born evil without an explanation why, particularly when other tropes commonly used to indicate a primitive or otherwise developmentally stunted culture appear alongside that first trope. Deliberately or not, that narrative does have a lot of parallels with the specious arguments that have been put forth irl about how X demographic is inherently superior to Y. Now, to a certain degree I will grant that within a typical D&D fantasy setting with its diverse pantheons the “they’re like that because their god made them that way” is a valid explanation, but I can understand why WotC doesn’t want to make that their official narrative for human-equivalent beings since such narratives have also been used irl in the manner I previously described.
Just wanted to point out, the Humanoids video dropped today (well, there's other stuff in it, but humanoids start at 15:30) and it clearly states the designer intent for those who were demanding it. Here's the relevant quote:
Kenreck:
"We have also the humanoid category which has a lot of our NPC statblocks which has already made my life so much easier, just to have that like - okay, I need cultists, we talked about this before, I need pirates, there's a entire pirate category now, Toughs - you know like if you're looking for a tough guy to put up against the the party, uh, this is independent of species or anything else, this is giving you a statblock of like, if this person is a Bruiser this is what you would have in this type of environment. This is so helpful because there's so many different versions of this."
Crawford:
"Now I'd love to pause for a moment on something you said here, and that is these statblocks work for humanoids of any species - so humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, gnomes, and so on and so forth, we have you covered with these statblocks. And then - just as we mentioned in the 2014 books, here again - if a DM wants to flavor any of these statblocks with rules elements from the playable versions of the species, you can always take traits from the Player's Handbook and apply them to these stat blocks. And I encourage also DMs to not only think outside the box where - like, don't fall into the trap of thinking humanoid means human, but also don't get trapped by the names of these statblocks. More than I think any other category in the Monster Manual, the humanoid statblocks, their names are suggestions only. What I do as a DM when I'm looking for humanoid statblocks, I usually am looking at what the stat block does more than I'm looking at the name, and so I might take a Pirate stat block but use it for a rascally noble or a bandit, so I'd say go through all of them look at what they do and as you're doing stat block selection as a DM, consider that you can use these for a whole variety of things, and they also make it easy for you to populate communities of really any humanoid species that you are using in your game. Also, for anyone who eager to see more sort of "species-tailored" humanoid statblocks, people are going to get to see more of that in our setting books that are coming up. So you're going to see that in the Forgotten Realms product for example - in that setting the malevolent Drow of Menzoberranzan are a important part of that setting, and so they get their own stat blocks in that product, and this is really true of all the creature categories in the Monster Manual. This is your massive starting toybox of monsters that are usable anywhere in the Multiverse, and then the bestiaries in our setting products, that's then where we can provide you versions of things tailored to the cultures and histories of our different worlds."
Two main takeaways:
1) If there was any doubt that their intent was for you to take a humanoid statblock and apply species traits to it (if you want the statblocks to vary by species), consider that quashed. Crawford explicitly stated that's what they had in mind.
2) These statblocks are fully intended to be generic NPCs that can fit anywhere in the Multiverse. But for those who really do want Evil Orc and Evil Drow statblocks, those are still coming, just in setting-specific material where they can be properly placed in context. The example he gave was that there will be Evil Drow in the Forgotten Realms book, but those Drow are evil because they live in Menzoberranzan and serve Lolth, not merely because they are Drow.
Does this give everyone what they want?
It would be nice if the DMG or MM would say so (I will say that the humanoid stat blocks are CR-appropriate without any species traits, so adding combat-relevant species traits may be a problem).
It is a nice piece of info that is buried in a video called New Constructs blah with only 16k views.
So basically only a few hard core players will ever hear it. It should have been in the monster manual.
I appreciate his advice of "ignore the name Tough" and just look for mechanics and CR that meets the need of the villain|boss|baddie you want.
And I am excited that Drow stuff is coming, I love playing with the stats to see who is stronger, the Drow elite warriors like Zaknafein and Drizzt versus the priestesses vs the mages.
Drawing up and simulating battles with the houses of Menzoberranzan is just a lot of fun.
I would really like to see Drizzt, Jarlaaxle and Artemis with new 2024 high level 5e stats probably around level 16.
The DMG does go into it under Creating a Creature.
Then goes on to give some examples. It doesn't come right out and say "Add species traits" but I guess that is what people need in order to know that they can add traits to make the NPCs fit the desired species.
Also the NPC section refers you to the Creating a Creature section
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
1) The DMG does say so (thanks Lia for providing the quote.)
2) They do explicitly warn you against adding traits that increase the creature's HP, grant THP, or increase the creature's damage. You can still do so of course.
If you want to ban orcs and drow from being playable and turn them into villainous caricatures at your table feel free. The books don't have to follow your lead when the rest of us clearly don't want that though.
The video came out only a few hours ago. Do you know how YouTube works? BTW it's 17k now.
It's in the DMG as multiple people have said now. The expectation is that DMs read that, especially if they plan on modifying the game.
The DMG says no such thing. It gives examples... none of which are species. In practice, most species are rounding errors, but if you turn your guards into dragonborn, goliath (anything but hill), human (depending on feat), or orc, the result will generally be about CR 1/4.
Those "multiple people" are just people copying each other. Unlike others I have actually read those pages and they are an incredibly bland piece of information just telling you generic instructions on how to create a creature. Completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Let me know if the video goes over 500k, then you have something.
1) Species Traits are Traits.
2) Uh... It's a good thing they explicitly warned you about traits that add damage then, isn't it? On that page? In the book?
Great, you admit it's there. One down!
This is why this is not an issue. You can still do that. So what this comes off as is "I play it this way and I'm mad that everyone else isn't told to play it this way!"
For people mad about lack of drow culture... how many books do you need? There are already hundreds if not thousands out there. A book detailing drow society doesn't need a "D&D 2024" brand on it to be useable in a modern game. I'd rather see new stuff than reprints of material that is already widely known/available. Did you know you can run Dark Sun for 5e? The D&D police will not break down your door for using old material for your campaign settings.
Which brings me to my main point, which is that stats should comprise roughly 1% of how a particular culture/species feels at the table. This is a role-playing game and there is not stat for "mean" or "greedy" or "conniving" or "innocent." Any DM worth their salt should be able to make an encounter with savage bandits feel extremely different from an encounter with disciplined soldiers or insane cultists even if those characters just have a basic-ass stat block limited to attributes and a sword they can swing. Having the word evil at the top of the stat block literally does nothing. It's up to you to portray that. That is how it's always been and that is why this argument is meaningless.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
[REDACTED]
Exactly, and I'll add - they DID promise us more Drow culture in the next FR book, which will include Menzoberranzan Drow statblocks. That will let them place the "evil Drow" in that book in the proper context - they're evil because they worship an evil goddess and do evil things in her name, not merely because they happen to be Drow.
Not to mention, there are still plenty of statblocks with "evil" at the top if that's all you want.
If the book doesn't have staple D&D foes like Orcs and Drow, then it's a monster manual not worth owning.
It does; you just take any existing NPC and say "that's an orc" or "that's a drow". And, as has already been noted, the setting specific stuff like a Drow Matron under the culture fomented by Lolth or an Eye of Gruumsh will appear in the sourcebook for the Forgotten Realms, as they reflect the particular cultures of a setting.
This book is more of a catalog than a manual.
Sounds lazy and boring, especially when you could instead just have a variety of different orc and drow type opponents. As we've enjoyed for most of the history of D&D.