Yes, but that unifies all races, and puts them under the same bracket. When I think of a human bandit, and an Orc bandit, there would be significant differences between them regarding appearance, abilities, equipment, etc.
Why? They have access to the same range of weapons and armor. They weren't particularly distinct back in AD&D, or in 3e.
Lots of people would use Performers for low level dungeons? I wouldn't make them the only monster, but if I have a level 1 party raiding some criminal hideout similar to what you might find in Dragon Heist, I might use them and a couple other of the low CR humanoids.
Would you not expect bandits, and scoundrels in a criminal hideout?
But apparently people expect hostile performers to be more present in adventures and campaigns, than hostile orcs. Time's changing for sure.
Did you miss this part?
I might use them and a couple other of the low CR humanoids.
Performer is just a label for a stat block. They don't have to be jester-clothed gymnasts. It is just a name for a generic humanoid that has Uncanny Dodge. Make them as monochrome as you want.
Lots of people would use Performers for low level dungeons? I wouldn't make them the only monster, but if I have a level 1 party raiding some criminal hideout similar to what you might find in Dragon Heist, I might use them and a couple other of the low CR humanoids.
Would you not expect bandits, and scoundrels in a criminal hideout?
But apparently people expect hostile performers to be more present in adventures and campaigns, than hostile orcs. Time's changing for sure.
Did you miss this part?
I might use them and a couple other of the low CR humanoids.
Performer is just a label for a stat block. They don't have to be jester-clothed gymnasts. It is just a name for a generic humanoid that has Uncanny Dodge. Make them as monochrome as you want.
Regarding the performer, it’s clearly stated, what a performer can be just beside the stat block. Acrobats, minstrels. Anything you’d find on a faire. Yet, it’s a waste of a page, compared to an opponent you’d use to face on a regular basis.
Regarding the performer, it’s clearly stated, what a performer can be just beside the stat block. Acrobats, minstrels. Anything you’d find on a faire. Yet, it’s a waste of a page, compared to an opponent you’d use to face on a regular basis.
You again seem to be missing some critical information when you read the MM. Let me help you.
Use the following list of entertainers and roles to inspirethe performers in your adventures:
It is not an exhaustive list, nor is it meant to be limiting. Since this list is meant to inspire rather than provide a list of acceptable options, you do not have to make them any one of those things if you don't want to.
I will also add, by not putting orcs in, it gives you the option for more orcs in your game. If they put on orcs, they probably use a CR 1/2 mook type, a CR 2 leader, and one more at CR 4 as a bigger leader. So by the time you hit level 3-4, you’re pretty much done with orcs.
Orcs were always ‘mass’ instead of ‘class’. A whole bunch of those can also wear down a party. And as far as I can remember the standard orcs in the 5e MM dealt pretty good damage, due to having greataxes.
Were, yes. But that doesn’t mean that’s what they need to be forever. Now they can still be that, and they can also be something else.
Orcs were always ‘mass’ instead of ‘class’.
So were every other category of basic humanoid enemy. The difference between an orc in AD&D and a bandit is that the orc was a 1 HD monster and the bandit was a 1-1 HD monster.
Also, why is it only orcs that people notice are missing? Yes, previous editions had 'orc' stat blocks, but they also had 'dwarf', 'elf', 'gnome, and 'halfling' stat blocks.
Regarding the performer, it’s clearly stated, what a performer can be just beside the stat block. Acrobats, minstrels. Anything you’d find on a faire. Yet, it’s a waste of a page, compared to an opponent you’d use to face on a regular basis.
You again seem to be missing some critical information when you read the MM. Let me help you.
Use the following list of entertainers and roles to inspirethe performers in your adventures:
It is not an exhaustive list, nor is it meant to be limiting. Since this list is meant to inspire rather than provide a list of acceptable options, you do not have to make them any one of those things if you don't want to.
I never said it would be limited to that. And I am not missing anything, but you are not getting the point, and that's why we go in circles. There is a reason why orcs should be listed specifically, independent from any 'villain profession' or 'villain' background' type (or however you wanna call it). The same reason why goblins, hobggoblins, gnolls, bugbears, kobold, orogs (deep orcs), pig-faced orcs, etc. are listed specifically in the MM. Because they are a monster race. For reference see the Black Horde, Red Hand of Doom, Dragons of Icespire Peak, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and so forth, but in particular Sons of Gruumsh. Their evil god stands diametrically to Correllon and the Elven Pantheon. They'd make sense in a campaign with an evil party, but even then evil-aligned elves would not welcome them.
Yes, but that unifies all races, and puts them under the same bracket. When I think of a human bandit, and an Orc bandit, there would be significant differences between them regarding appearance, abilities, equipment, etc.
Why? They have access to the same range of weapons and armor. They weren't particularly distinct back in AD&D, or in 3e.
They had preferences, which are also tied to them not being a high culture. Their armor was often just leather, hide, or scale at best. Their weapons of choice usually were axes, swords, both one and two-handed, sabres, spears, short-bows. Also their equipment was usually battle-worn, with jagged weapons, and holey (not holy) armors.
I will also add, by not putting orcs in, it gives you the option for more orcs in your game. If they put on orcs, they probably use a CR 1/2 mook type, a CR 2 leader, and one more at CR 4 as a bigger leader. So by the time you hit level 3-4, you’re pretty much done with orcs.
Orcs were always ‘mass’ instead of ‘class’. A whole bunch of those can also wear down a party. And as far as I can remember the standard orcs in the 5e MM dealt pretty good damage, due to having greataxes.
Were, yes. But that doesn’t mean that’s what they need to be forever. Now they can still be that, and they can also be something else.
And that's why many players stick to older editions. It's a change nobody asked for, but which has major ramifications towards lore and world building, and it distorts the works of others like Gary Gygax, and Ed Greenwood. The question is, what is gained from that change? My answer would be nothing, but confusion, and irritation. But in the end that's WotC decision.
I never said it would be limited to that. And I am not missing anything, but you are not getting the point, and that's why we go in circles. There is a reason why orcs should be listed specifically, independent from any 'villain profession' or 'villain' background' type , just like goblins, hobggoblins, gnolls, bugbears, kobold, orogs (deep orcs), pig-faced orcs, etc. Because they are a monster race. For reference see the Black Horde, Red Hand of Doom, Dragons of Icespire Peak, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and in particular Sons of Gruumsh. Their evil god stands diametrically to Correllon and the Elven Pantheon. They'd make sense in a campaign with an evil party, but even then evil-aligned elves would not welcome them.
Yes, you did say it is limited to these options. Here:
it’s clearly stated, what a performer can be...
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Orcs, etc are not strictly Monster Races anymore. They are Player Species options too and in some setting or adventure books, you might find specific groups of enemies that have stat blocks that are of these Species.
Performers are different from Bandits, which are different from Toughs, which are different from Priests. You can make any of those orcs, hobgoblins, or bugbears if you want them. That option is available to you as they are all Humanoid. The MM expanded your options of what an orc can be. This is a good thing.
I never said it would be limited to that. And I am not missing anything, but you are not getting the point, and that's why we go in circles. There is a reason why orcs should be listed specifically, independent from any 'villain profession' or 'villain' background' type , just like goblins, hobggoblins, gnolls, bugbears, kobold, orogs (deep orcs), pig-faced orcs, etc. Because they are a monster race. For reference see the Black Horde, Red Hand of Doom, Dragons of Icespire Peak, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and in particular Sons of Gruumsh. Their evil god stands diametrically to Correllon and the Elven Pantheon. They'd make sense in a campaign with an evil party, but even then evil-aligned elves would not welcome them.
Yes, you did say it is limited to these options. Here:
it’s clearly stated, what a performer can be...
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Orcs, etc are not Monster Races anymore. They are Player Species options and in some setting or adventure books, you might find specific groups of enemies that have stat blocks that are of these Species.
Performers are different from Bandits, which are different from Toughs, which are different from Priests. You can make any of those orcs, hobgoblins, or bugbears if you want them. That option is available to you as they are all Humanoid. The MM expanded your options of what an orc can be. This is a good thing.
Lets have a look at the performer stat block then; fixed abilities. So, an orc performer would have the same STR 12, DEX 16, etc. as a halfling. Great! a) I do not think that an orc stage fighter would have the same stats as a halfling juggler, and b) lorewise you would not find any orcs among them at all. Half-orcs for sure, but not full-orcs.
I also highly doubt that orc bandits, resp. marauders/raiders would come with only an 11 in Strength. Toughs? With a mace? Oh, yeah, just swap the weapon. But then you do not need the stat block either, if it is subject to change. And Strength 15 is still not convinving. Orcs in the old MM had 16.
It's a change nobody asked for, but which has major ramifications towards lore and world building, and it distorts the works of others like Gary Gygax, and Ed Greenwood. The question is, what is gained from that change?
What is gained: 1) PCs can now be orcs, free of evil/villainous stereotypes --- not to mention the somewhat racist caricatures that were used to draw some of the "monster races." 2) "Evil" and similar notions are no longer tied to biology or birth. 3) Orcs, PCs or not, are capable of being "civilized" and "high culture."
It's a change nobody asked for, but which has major ramifications towards lore and world building, and it distorts the works of others like Gary Gygax, and Ed Greenwood.
I assure you, if it was a change nobody asked for, it wouldn't have been made.
It's a change nobody asked for, but which has major ramifications towards lore and world building, and it distorts the works of others like Gary Gygax, and Ed Greenwood.
I assure you, if it was a change nobody asked for, it wouldn't have been made.
I can assure you, in current times a lot of stuff is put from it's feet to it's head, with nobody asking for it.
Lets have a look at the performer stat block then; fixed abilities. So, an orc performer would have the same STR 12, DEX 16, etc. as a halfling. Great! a) I do not think that an orc stage fighter would have the same stats as a halfling juggler, and b) lorewise you would not find any orcs among them at all. Half-orcs for sure, but not full-orcs.
I also highly doubt that orc bandits, resp. marauders/raiders would come with only an 11 in Strength. Toughs? With a mace? Oh, yeah, just swap the weapon. But then you do not need the stat block either, if it is subject to change. And Strength 15 is still not convinving. Orcs in the old MM had 16.
But let me guess. You still can't see it.
What's wrong with a halfling having the same stats as an orc, if what they do is the same?
Why can't the stage fighter and juggler have the same stats?
Lore means setting. MM is setting agnostic. If you want monsters from setting specific places, there is a book or two for that.
Why can't orc bandits have 11 strength if they use dex weapons?
Regarding the performer, it’s clearly stated, what a performer can be just beside the stat block. Acrobats, minstrels. Anything you’d find on a faire. Yet, it’s a waste of a page, compared to an opponent you’d use to face on a regular basis.
You again seem to be missing some critical information when you read the MM. Let me help you.
Use the following list of entertainers and roles to inspirethe performers in your adventures:
It is not an exhaustive list, nor is it meant to be limiting. Since this list is meant to inspire rather than provide a list of acceptable options, you do not have to make them any one of those things if you don't want to.
I never said it would be limited to that. And I am not missing anything, but you are not getting the point, and that's why we go in circles. There is a reason why orcs should be listed specifically, independent from any 'villain profession' or 'villain' background' type (or however you wanna call it). The same reason why goblins, hobggoblins, gnolls, bugbears, kobold, orogs (deep orcs), pig-faced orcs, etc. are listed specifically in the MM. Because they are a monster race. For reference see the Black Horde, Red Hand of Doom, Dragons of Icespire Peak, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and so forth, but in particular Sons of Gruumsh. Their evil god stands diametrically to Correllon and the Elven Pantheon. They'd make sense in a campaign with an evil party, but even then evil-aligned elves would not welcome them.
Yes, but that unifies all races, and puts them under the same bracket. When I think of a human bandit, and an Orc bandit, there would be significant differences between them regarding appearance, abilities, equipment, etc.
Why? They have access to the same range of weapons and armor. They weren't particularly distinct back in AD&D, or in 3e.
They had preferences, which are also tied to them not being a high culture. Their armor was often just leather, hide, or scale at best. Their weapons of choice usually were axes, swords, both one and two-handed, sabres, spears, short-bows. Also their equipment was usually battle-worn, with jagged weapons, and holey (not holy) armors.
I will also add, by not putting orcs in, it gives you the option for more orcs in your game. If they put on orcs, they probably use a CR 1/2 mook type, a CR 2 leader, and one more at CR 4 as a bigger leader. So by the time you hit level 3-4, you’re pretty much done with orcs.
Orcs were always ‘mass’ instead of ‘class’. A whole bunch of those can also wear down a party. And as far as I can remember the standard orcs in the 5e MM dealt pretty good damage, due to having greataxes.
Were, yes. But that doesn’t mean that’s what they need to be forever. Now they can still be that, and they can also be something else.
And that's why many players stick to older editions. It's a change nobody asked for, but which has major ramifications towards lore and world building, and it distorts the works of others like Gary Gygax, and Ed Greenwood. The question is, what is gained from that change? My answer would be nothing, but confusion, and irritation. But in the end that's WotC decision.
Please, hardly anyone plays old editions anymore. And why should WotC care about those who do? They are, by definition, not customers. They know what the current edition is about, if they were going to switch, they would have. Why cater to people who aren’t go to buy your book no matter what? The most commonly played setting is homebrew; most people don’t care about published lore, or are happy to change it to whatever suits them.
Gygax’s work relies heavily on the concept that each DM make the game their own. Odd that you’re now saying there is one true way to play. This change, if anything, leans in to his idea.
But, more importantly, who cares what he might think, not that either of us would know. He made a game a long time ago. That’s all. The man did not come down the mountain with the PHB etched in stone tablets. People get to change it so it can remain relevant. It has improved in countless ways. This is just one of them.
Because they are a monster race. For reference see the Black Horde, Red Hand of Doom, Dragons of Icespire Peak, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and so forth, but in particular Sons of Gruumsh. Their evil god stands diametrically to Correllon and the Elven Pantheon. They'd make sense in a campaign with an evil party, but even then evil-aligned elves would not welcome them. ...
And that's why many players stick to older editions. It's a change nobody asked for, but which has major ramifications towards lore and world building, and it distorts the works of others like Gary Gygax, and Ed Greenwood. The question is, what is gained from that change? My answer would be nothing, but confusion, and irritation. But in the end that's WotC decision.
Your definition of monster doesnt align with the definition the game uses. By the book everything controlled by the DM, even NPCs or benign creatures is a monster. That is why these are all in the Monster Manual. You might need their statblocks after all. Actually its always been that way. The first edition Monster Manual had elves and humans after all. I ran an Icespire Peak campaign where the orcs were actually driven out by the dragon and some of them were recruited by the Talos cult while others were starving and looking for a new home. My good aligned group ended up winning the one group of orcs as allies. The forgotten realms have a long history of some non evil orcs that are allies and friends to the heroes. Not every setting and not every campaign will treat them the same. I think Ed Greenwood work always has been flexibel in that regard and it fits the Faerun vibe. But if I wanted to have orcs be the always evil, barberic types in my campaigns, I have no problems using those stat blocks to still conform to that lore. You can build your world the way you like and if your players are fine with it require all orcs to be of evil alignments. Back in AD&D alignment restrictions was one of the first things we dropped, but its your table. As for "a change nooone asked for", thats simply not true. I have had a problem with half-orc characters forever, I am absolutely glad how this has changed. What is gained by the change? The problematic stuff around half orcs can be easily avoided, I as DM am free to build my world with my orcs as I want it, players that liked the orcish types can still play those, and I like the sharper division between humanoid and non-humanoid types as it makes those types a bit more alien or monstrous to stay in your terminology.
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Orcs, etc are not strictly Monster Races anymore. They are Player Species options too and in some setting or adventure books, you might find specific groups of enemies that have stat blocks that are of these Species.
Performers are different from Bandits, which are different from Toughs, which are different from Priests. You can make any of those orcs, hobgoblins, or bugbears if you want them. That option is available to you as they are all Humanoid. The MM expanded your options of what an orc can be. This is a good thing.
While I agree with your sentiment and conclusion RAW hobgoblins and bugbears are not humanoid. Orcs are.
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Orcs, etc are not strictly Monster Races anymore. They are Player Species options too and in some setting or adventure books, you might find specific groups of enemies that have stat blocks that are of these Species.
Performers are different from Bandits, which are different from Toughs, which are different from Priests. You can make any of those orcs, hobgoblins, or bugbears if you want them. That option is available to you as they are all Humanoid. The MM expanded your options of what an orc can be. This is a good thing.
While I agree with your sentiment and conclusion RAW hobgoblins and bugbears are not humanoid. Orcs are.
I understood a hominoid to be a bipedal organism to have 4 limbs. Isn't that hobgoblins and bugbears? Why are they not considered a hominoid?
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Orcs, etc are not strictly Monster Races anymore. They are Player Species options too and in some setting or adventure books, you might find specific groups of enemies that have stat blocks that are of these Species.
Performers are different from Bandits, which are different from Toughs, which are different from Priests. You can make any of those orcs, hobgoblins, or bugbears if you want them. That option is available to you as they are all Humanoid. The MM expanded your options of what an orc can be. This is a good thing.
While I agree with your sentiment and conclusion RAW hobgoblins and bugbears are not humanoid. Orcs are.
I understood a hominoid to be a bipedal organism to have 4 limbs. Isn't that hobgoblins and bugbears? Why are they not considered a hominoid?
Like a lot of words, "Humanoid" has a specific meaning in D&D Rules that is not the same as its meaning in general language. It is the name of one of the fourteen Creature Types (see here) which every creature has exactly one of.
In the 2024 rules, Hobgoblins and Bugbears are not Humanoids because their stat blocks say their Creature Type is something else (Fey, as it happens). In the 2014 rules they were both Humanoids.
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Orcs, etc are not strictly Monster Races anymore. They are Player Species options too and in some setting or adventure books, you might find specific groups of enemies that have stat blocks that are of these Species.
Performers are different from Bandits, which are different from Toughs, which are different from Priests. You can make any of those orcs, hobgoblins, or bugbears if you want them. That option is available to you as they are all Humanoid. The MM expanded your options of what an orc can be. This is a good thing.
While I agree with your sentiment and conclusion RAW hobgoblins and bugbears are not humanoid. Orcs are.
Thanks for the correction. My error was using the Monsters of the Multiverse player options for those two, which states that they are both Humanoid and Goblinoid. However, player options are different from monsters. My bad.
Why? They have access to the same range of weapons and armor. They weren't particularly distinct back in AD&D, or in 3e.
Did you miss this part?
Performer is just a label for a stat block. They don't have to be jester-clothed gymnasts. It is just a name for a generic humanoid that has Uncanny Dodge. Make them as monochrome as you want.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Regarding the performer, it’s clearly stated, what a performer can be just beside the stat block. Acrobats, minstrels. Anything you’d find on a faire. Yet, it’s a waste of a page, compared to an opponent you’d use to face on a regular basis.
You again seem to be missing some critical information when you read the MM. Let me help you.
It is not an exhaustive list, nor is it meant to be limiting. Since this list is meant to inspire rather than provide a list of acceptable options, you do not have to make them any one of those things if you don't want to.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Were, yes. But that doesn’t mean that’s what they need to be forever. Now they can still be that, and they can also be something else.
So were every other category of basic humanoid enemy. The difference between an orc in AD&D and a bandit is that the orc was a 1 HD monster and the bandit was a 1-1 HD monster.
Also, why is it only orcs that people notice are missing? Yes, previous editions had 'orc' stat blocks, but they also had 'dwarf', 'elf', 'gnome, and 'halfling' stat blocks.
I never said it would be limited to that. And I am not missing anything, but you are not getting the point, and that's why we go in circles. There is a reason why orcs should be listed specifically, independent from any 'villain profession' or 'villain' background' type (or however you wanna call it). The same reason why goblins, hobggoblins, gnolls, bugbears, kobold, orogs (deep orcs), pig-faced orcs, etc. are listed specifically in the MM. Because they are a monster race. For reference see the Black Horde, Red Hand of Doom, Dragons of Icespire Peak, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and so forth, but in particular Sons of Gruumsh. Their evil god stands diametrically to Correllon and the Elven Pantheon. They'd make sense in a campaign with an evil party, but even then evil-aligned elves would not welcome them.
They had preferences, which are also tied to them not being a high culture. Their armor was often just leather, hide, or scale at best. Their weapons of choice usually were axes, swords, both one and two-handed, sabres, spears, short-bows. Also their equipment was usually battle-worn, with jagged weapons, and holey (not holy) armors.
And that's why many players stick to older editions. It's a change nobody asked for, but which has major ramifications towards lore and world building, and it distorts the works of others like Gary Gygax, and Ed Greenwood. The question is, what is gained from that change? My answer would be nothing, but confusion, and irritation. But in the end that's WotC decision.
Yes, you did say it is limited to these options. Here:
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Orcs, etc are not strictly Monster Races anymore. They are Player Species options too and in some setting or adventure books, you might find specific groups of enemies that have stat blocks that are of these Species.
Performers are different from Bandits, which are different from Toughs, which are different from Priests. You can make any of those orcs, hobgoblins, or bugbears if you want them. That option is available to you as they are all Humanoid. The MM expanded your options of what an orc can be. This is a good thing.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Lets have a look at the performer stat block then; fixed abilities. So, an orc performer would have the same STR 12, DEX 16, etc. as a halfling. Great! a) I do not think that an orc stage fighter would have the same stats as a halfling juggler, and b) lorewise you would not find any orcs among them at all. Half-orcs for sure, but not full-orcs.
I also highly doubt that orc bandits, resp. marauders/raiders would come with only an 11 in Strength. Toughs? With a mace? Oh, yeah, just swap the weapon. But then you do not need the stat block either, if it is subject to change. And Strength 15 is still not convinving. Orcs in the old MM had 16.
But let me guess. You still can't see it.
You keep bringing lore into this as if there is a "correct" lore. There isn't. That's why it's been done this way.
What is gained:
1) PCs can now be orcs, free of evil/villainous stereotypes --- not to mention the somewhat racist caricatures that were used to draw some of the "monster races."
2) "Evil" and similar notions are no longer tied to biology or birth.
3) Orcs, PCs or not, are capable of being "civilized" and "high culture."
I assure you, if it was a change nobody asked for, it wouldn't have been made.
I can assure you, in current times a lot of stuff is put from it's feet to it's head, with nobody asking for it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Please, hardly anyone plays old editions anymore. And why should WotC care about those who do? They are, by definition, not customers. They know what the current edition is about, if they were going to switch, they would have. Why cater to people who aren’t go to buy your book no matter what?
The most commonly played setting is homebrew; most people don’t care about published lore, or are happy to change it to whatever suits them.
Gygax’s work relies heavily on the concept that each DM make the game their own. Odd that you’re now saying there is one true way to play. This change, if anything, leans in to his idea.
But, more importantly, who cares what he might think, not that either of us would know. He made a game a long time ago. That’s all. The man did not come down the mountain with the PHB etched in stone tablets. People get to change it so it can remain relevant. It has improved in countless ways. This is just one of them.
Your definition of monster doesnt align with the definition the game uses. By the book everything controlled by the DM, even NPCs or benign creatures is a monster. That is why these are all in the Monster Manual. You might need their statblocks after all. Actually its always been that way. The first edition Monster Manual had elves and humans after all. I ran an Icespire Peak campaign where the orcs were actually driven out by the dragon and some of them were recruited by the Talos cult while others were starving and looking for a new home. My good aligned group ended up winning the one group of orcs as allies. The forgotten realms have a long history of some non evil orcs that are allies and friends to the heroes. Not every setting and not every campaign will treat them the same. I think Ed Greenwood work always has been flexibel in that regard and it fits the Faerun vibe. But if I wanted to have orcs be the always evil, barberic types in my campaigns, I have no problems using those stat blocks to still conform to that lore. You can build your world the way you like and if your players are fine with it require all orcs to be of evil alignments. Back in AD&D alignment restrictions was one of the first things we dropped, but its your table. As for "a change nooone asked for", thats simply not true. I have had a problem with half-orc characters forever, I am absolutely glad how this has changed. What is gained by the change? The problematic stuff around half orcs can be easily avoided, I as DM am free to build my world with my orcs as I want it, players that liked the orcish types can still play those, and I like the sharper division between humanoid and non-humanoid types as it makes those types a bit more alien or monstrous to stay in your terminology.
While I agree with your sentiment and conclusion RAW hobgoblins and bugbears are not humanoid. Orcs are.
I understood a hominoid to be a bipedal organism to have 4 limbs. Isn't that hobgoblins and bugbears? Why are they not considered a hominoid?
Like a lot of words, "Humanoid" has a specific meaning in D&D Rules that is not the same as its meaning in general language. It is the name of one of the fourteen Creature Types (see here) which every creature has exactly one of.
In the 2024 rules, Hobgoblins and Bugbears are not Humanoids because their stat blocks say their Creature Type is something else (Fey, as it happens). In the 2014 rules they were both Humanoids.
pronouns: he/she/they
Thanks for the correction. My error was using the Monsters of the Multiverse player options for those two, which states that they are both Humanoid and Goblinoid. However, player options are different from monsters. My bad.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing