Why were Orcs omitted from the new Monster Manual? I see some lame attempt to "convert" under the Tough...whatever that is suppose mean. It seems like they took a lot of monsters/animals or just replaced them.
The reorganization of the MM (I am referring to the physical book)makes it less efficient; instead of going to the Golems and having all the types in one spot and readily available; you now have to look them all up individually. Same with the dragons.
The only 1 positive improvement with the new MM is the additional stats.
The reason there are no orc or drow stats is because all npc stat blocks can be any race, and so you could have a orc assassin, or a drow tough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
I don't have an issue with saying "just add a species to a generic mook template", but it would be nice if they had better mook templates. I'm particularly unfond of the Tough, just because 32 hp/5 dpr is degenerate.
They’ve said that the stats more associated with a particular setting- such as the FR presentations of orcs and drow- will appear in those setting books. It does result in fewer specialized NPC blocks in the MM, but it’s part of the push for setting neutral core books.
They seem to have all the "Player Species" as one of the NPCs. They apparently did this when they introduced Tieflings back in 4th ed, so its not without president. There is a conversion chart in the back, but there is nothing preventing you from using some older ones that don't have a clear NPC variant.
I don't have an issue with saying "just add a species to a generic mook template", but it would be nice if they had better mook templates. I'm particularly unfond of the Tough, just because 32 hp/5 dpr is degenerate.
It's CR ½. How powerful were you expecting it to be? It's twice as... well, tough, as the 2014 Orc anyway, and gets Pack Tactics to boot.
I don't have an issue with saying "just add a species to a generic mook template", but it would be nice if they had better mook templates. I'm particularly unfond of the Tough, just because 32 hp/5 dpr is degenerate.
It's CR ½. How powerful were you expecting it to be? It's twice as... well, tough, as the 2014 Orc anyway, and gets Pack Tactics to boot.
I think their problem is that the damage is very low compared to the health.
So the fact that the analog for an orc in the 2024 MM is a tanky/brawny build is a problem even though it completely conforms to the stereotype you've indicated in another thread you prefer as the orc baseline, just because it doesn't say "orc" in the name?
The Tough is built right for its CR as an early play option- sturdy enough that the party will need to work at it for a few rounds to down one at early levels, but not hitting so hard there's a real risk of them downing a lot of the party while they do it.
It's CR ½. How powerful were you expecting it to be?
I'm not expecting powerful. I just don't want sacks of hit points with no damage, give them fewer hit points and more damage. More generally, you should be able to just say "I want my mooks with weapon X" and have a ready template.
It's CR ½. How powerful were you expecting it to be?
I'm not expecting powerful. I just don't want sacks of hit points with no damage, give them fewer hit points and more damage. More generally, you should be able to just say "I want my mooks with weapon X" and have a ready template.
1) That's exactly what these are. Having that mook be labelled "Orc" is actually counterproductive for anyone who wants their mooks to be anything else.
2) The reason the "Orc" did more damage* is that it was using a greataxe instead of a mace. Seems like a pretty basic change if that's what you want.
*And DPR-wise the Orc actually did less damage because it didn't have Pack Tactics, and a weaker ranged attack to boot.
It's CR ½. How powerful were you expecting it to be?
I'm not expecting powerful. I just don't want sacks of hit points with no damage, give them fewer hit points and more damage. More generally, you should be able to just say "I want my mooks with weapon X" and have a ready template.
I agree with you in general that monsters should be designed for shorter, bloodier fights to keep combats from dragging on. That being said, there's a place in the narrative for the big, hard-as-nails guy who you can't mow down in one quick blitz, and trying to represent this through higher CR can result in TPKs. As long as this kind of template isn't used in a broader sense, I think it's a good tool to have in the box.
It's CR ½. How powerful were you expecting it to be?
I'm not expecting powerful. I just don't want sacks of hit points with no damage, give them fewer hit points and more damage. More generally, you should be able to just say "I want my mooks with weapon X" and have a ready template.
I agree with you in general that monsters should be designed for shorter, bloodier fights to keep combats from dragging on. That being said, there's a place in the narrative for the big, hard-as-nails guy who you can't mow down in one quick blitz, and trying to represent this through higher CR can result in TPKs. As long as this kind of template isn't used in a broader sense, I think it's a good tool to have in the box.
We can always adjust for the fight in question, Just using the toughs, thugs, or bandits as examples you can play them differently.
You can play them smart, or you can play them with the kind of Wisdom and Intelligence needed to mug the Last Dragonborn when they are running around Skyrim as a werewolf.
If nothing else this makes it easier to slot different species in the people roles for NPCs as we don't have to worry about Elves getting +1 to this, and Halflings getting +2 to that when making a fight. Just the abilities that might be useful like Adrenalin Rush and Dark Vision.
I'm not expecting powerful. I just don't want sacks of hit points with no damage, give them fewer hit points and more damage. More generally, you should be able to just say "I want my mooks with weapon X" and have a ready template.
1) That's exactly what these are. Having that mook be labelled "Orc" is actually counterproductive for anyone who wants their mooks to be anything else.
That's not what these things are -- they have specific weapons and loadouts.
For clarity, I don't want orcs as a monster. I want something like
Goon (CR 1/2)
Medium or Small Humanoid, Neutral
AC 15 (Shield: 17) Initiative +1 (11)
HP 19 (3d8 + 6)
Speed 30 ft.
Str 16 (+3), Dex 12 (+1), Con 14 (+2), Int 10 (+0), Wis 11 (+0), Cha 10 (+0)
Gear Scale, weapons per Loadout
Senses Passive Perception 10
Languages Common
CR 1/2 (XP 100; PB +2)
Traits
Loadout: goons come with a wide range of gear; choose a shield and any one-handed martial weapon, or a two-handed martial weapon, plus Javelins. Appropriate attacks below.
Actions
Battleaxe, Flail, Longsword, Rapier, Trident, Warhammer, War Pick. Melee attack roll: +5, reach 5 ft. Hit: 7 (1d8+3) damage of the weapon's type.
Glaive, Halberd, or Pike. Melee attack roll: +5, reach 10 ft. Hit: 8 (1d10+3) damage of the weapon's type.
Greataxe. Melee attack roll: +5, reach 5 ft. Hit: 9 (1d12+3) damage of the weapon's type.
Greatsword or Maul. Melee attack roll: +5, reach 5 ft. Hit: 10 (2d6+3) damage of the weapon's type.
Javelin.Melee or Ranged Attack Roll: +5, reach 5 ft. or range 30/90 ft. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 3) Piercing damage.
That’s a lot of extra ink for math that very few DMs will need spelled out for them.
Um.. 'a lot'? Yes, most DMs can figure out damage for themselves, but all it's adding is one trait (Loadout) and three extra attack lines. The main virtues are
The reduced hit points give enough power budget to allow better weapons.
It makes it clear to an inexperienced DM: "This is fine, it will not meaningfully affect challenge".
That’s a lot of extra ink for math that very few DMs will need spelled out for them.
Um.. 'a lot'? Yes, most DMs can figure out damage for themselves, but all it's adding is one trait (Loadout) and three extra attack lines. The main virtues are
The reduced hit points give enough power budget to allow better weapons.
It makes it clear to an inexperienced DM: "This is fine, it will not meaningfully affect challenge".
1. Again, the point of the Tough build is specifically to be a sack of HP that a tier 1 party needs to focus on for a few rounds to down
2. “You may equip monsters with additional gear however you like, using the equipment chapter of the Player’s Handbook for inspiration.” That’s a direct quote from the MM.
1. Again, the point of the Tough build is specifically to be a sack of HP that a tier 1 party needs to focus on for a few rounds to down
2. “You may equip monsters with additional gear however you like, using the equipment chapter of the Player’s Handbook for inspiration.” That’s a direct quote from the MM.
1) Nothing says that, and given that the stat block lists pack tactics, they're expected to be used in number. Monsters intended to be used in numbers are not supposed to be durable ("If your encounter includes more than two creatures per character, include fragile creatures that can be defeated quickly.").
2) And surely giving the tough a maul and chainmail wouldn't affect their difficulty at all...
Also, it's not that hard to just use the old stat blocks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
1. Again, the point of the Tough build is specifically to be a sack of HP that a tier 1 party needs to focus on for a few rounds to down
2. “You may equip monsters with additional gear however you like, using the equipment chapter of the Player’s Handbook for inspiration.” That’s a direct quote from the MM.
1) Nothing says that, and given that the stat block lists pack tactics, they're expected to be used in number. Monsters intended to be used in numbers are not supposed to be durable ("If your encounter includes more than two creatures per character, include fragile creatures that can be defeated quickly.").
2) And surely giving the tough a maul and chainmail wouldn't affect their difficulty at all...
Considering it only takes one other creature to trigger Pack Tactics, a quote that specifically invokes 2 to 1 numbers against the party isn’t particularly relevant.
And a Maul bumps the damage by about 4 on hit, with a to hit low enough that they’re likely to have 50% or less odds on a frontliner. Chainmail is another matter, but we were only discussing weapon options so that’s also a separate topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why were Orcs omitted from the new Monster Manual? I see some lame attempt to "convert" under the Tough...whatever that is suppose mean. It seems like they took a lot of monsters/animals or just replaced them.
The reorganization of the MM (I am referring to the physical book)makes it less efficient; instead of going to the Golems and having all the types in one spot and readily available; you now have to look them all up individually. Same with the dragons.
The only 1 positive improvement with the new MM is the additional stats.
The reason there are no orc or drow stats is because all npc stat blocks can be any race, and so you could have a orc assassin, or a drow tough.
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . .-.-.-
I don't have an issue with saying "just add a species to a generic mook template", but it would be nice if they had better mook templates. I'm particularly unfond of the Tough, just because 32 hp/5 dpr is degenerate.
They’ve said that the stats more associated with a particular setting- such as the FR presentations of orcs and drow- will appear in those setting books. It does result in fewer specialized NPC blocks in the MM, but it’s part of the push for setting neutral core books.
They seem to have all the "Player Species" as one of the NPCs. They apparently did this when they introduced Tieflings back in 4th ed, so its not without president. There is a conversion chart in the back, but there is nothing preventing you from using some older ones that don't have a clear NPC variant.
It's CR ½. How powerful were you expecting it to be? It's twice as... well, tough, as the 2014 Orc anyway, and gets Pack Tactics to boot.
I think their problem is that the damage is very low compared to the health.
So the fact that the analog for an orc in the 2024 MM is a tanky/brawny build is a problem even though it completely conforms to the stereotype you've indicated in another thread you prefer as the orc baseline, just because it doesn't say "orc" in the name?
The Tough is built right for its CR as an early play option- sturdy enough that the party will need to work at it for a few rounds to down one at early levels, but not hitting so hard there's a real risk of them downing a lot of the party while they do it.
I'm not expecting powerful. I just don't want sacks of hit points with no damage, give them fewer hit points and more damage. More generally, you should be able to just say "I want my mooks with weapon X" and have a ready template.
1) That's exactly what these are. Having that mook be labelled "Orc" is actually counterproductive for anyone who wants their mooks to be anything else.
2) The reason the "Orc" did more damage* is that it was using a greataxe instead of a mace. Seems like a pretty basic change if that's what you want.
*And DPR-wise the Orc actually did less damage because it didn't have Pack Tactics, and a weaker ranged attack to boot.
I agree with you in general that monsters should be designed for shorter, bloodier fights to keep combats from dragging on. That being said, there's a place in the narrative for the big, hard-as-nails guy who you can't mow down in one quick blitz, and trying to represent this through higher CR can result in TPKs. As long as this kind of template isn't used in a broader sense, I think it's a good tool to have in the box.
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
We can always adjust for the fight in question, Just using the toughs, thugs, or bandits as examples you can play them differently.
You can play them smart, or you can play them with the kind of Wisdom and Intelligence needed to mug the Last Dragonborn when they are running around Skyrim as a werewolf.
If nothing else this makes it easier to slot different species in the people roles for NPCs as we don't have to worry about Elves getting +1 to this, and Halflings getting +2 to that when making a fight. Just the abilities that might be useful like Adrenalin Rush and Dark Vision.
That's not what these things are -- they have specific weapons and loadouts.
For clarity, I don't want orcs as a monster. I want something like
That’s a lot of extra ink for math that very few DMs will need spelled out for them.
Um.. 'a lot'? Yes, most DMs can figure out damage for themselves, but all it's adding is one trait (Loadout) and three extra attack lines. The main virtues are
1. Again, the point of the Tough build is specifically to be a sack of HP that a tier 1 party needs to focus on for a few rounds to down
2. “You may equip monsters with additional gear however you like, using the equipment chapter of the Player’s Handbook for inspiration.” That’s a direct quote from the MM.
1) Nothing says that, and given that the stat block lists pack tactics, they're expected to be used in number. Monsters intended to be used in numbers are not supposed to be durable ("If your encounter includes more than two creatures per character, include fragile creatures that can be defeated quickly.").
2) And surely giving the tough a maul and chainmail wouldn't affect their difficulty at all...
Also, it's not that hard to just use the old stat blocks.
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . .-.-.-
It is absurd to expect somebody to have the old version of a ruleset to use it properly.
Considering it only takes one other creature to trigger Pack Tactics, a quote that specifically invokes 2 to 1 numbers against the party isn’t particularly relevant.
And a Maul bumps the damage by about 4 on hit, with a to hit low enough that they’re likely to have 50% or less odds on a frontliner. Chainmail is another matter, but we were only discussing weapon options so that’s also a separate topic.