Ok I'm fed up with this. First orcs were removed from the 2024 MM. Along with all humanoid monsters. Their excuse was to use NPC stats. Use a tough in its place. Where is the lore? I thought maybe they would add orc monsters in the forgotten realms book. I could have sworn that there are were several FR novels about how cool orcs were. and how much a part of FR they were. Nope. At least we got some Drow. Why make this choice? Are you saying that I cannot be trusted with a monstrous being wielding an axe that is based on Tolkien and other enemies? The stats for a tough and 2014 orcs are very different. Tell me how having an orc as a monster stat in the MM is offensive to anyone? And orcs are just the most obvious. Deep gnomes, Duergar, Lizardfolk. You have practically removed these from a new GMs toolbox. Not only that but you have reduced the lore to 4E monster manual levels! People use that lore for ideas!. Removing them doesn't help in any way. If you want to make a statement about how not all orcs are brutes and have complex civilization then do that. But removing them from the toolbox is just stupid. A GM should not have to go to earlier editions for inspiration. Mostly because new GMs aren't going to have that stuff available.
You don't appear to be new here, but this argument has been hashed out several times already (the latest one not too long ago). The main points:
1. Lore is setting specific. The core books should be setting agnostic. If you want an orc, add a PC orc species ability to any of the NPC statblocks and you suddenly have an orc. You might have a point about FR, but I'm not an expert.
2. It isn't so much about offense (it's a bit about that) as it is book space and customizability. It is already a big MM (32 more pages than 2014). Now add 5-6 stat blocks for each species that could possibly be antagonistic and you've just added a bunch of text for little actual gain. Brand new DM? Grab the scout block and call it an orcish scout. Kinda new DM? Grab the scout block and add something "orcish" to it, then call it an orcish scout. Experienced DM? You don't need me to tell you how to use the MM.
3. DMs get inspiration from everywhere, older editions included. New DMs will likely be using pre-canned adventures for their first few sessions. The statblocks should either be there or tell the DM where it is (or how to make it) in the MM. Experienced DM? Again, you don't need me to tell you how to mold the MM to your inspiration.
Look, When I first heard they were removing those statblocks, I had a reaction much like you. But since, I've seen that nothing was really taken away. The 9 pages they devoted to NPC statblocks in the back of the 2014 MM are now just a part of the 2024 MM (and expanded) and none of the redundancy of also having an "orc" is there to make room for ~150 more monsters.
Now, would I have organized the 2024 MM differently? Probably. I would have kept the NPC statblocks together, and also the dragon, giant, demon, and devil statblocks together. I see the problem with that, though: at what point do you draw the line? Dragons in 2014 did not include the wyvern or the dragon turtle (both considered dragons, if not "true dragons").
Because WotC was so wise to make orcs instead of half-orcs a default playable race. Do Orcs actually appear as villains in current official adventures?
But then, when I look at the visual portrayal at the racial description in the 2024 Players Handbook...seems WotC went "orc-o-phile".
As has been pointed out, one of the biggest issues was space. Another was trying to make core books setting agnostic.
With that said, it feels to me like they should have done something in the Monster Manual along the lines of base stats and template modifiers for quick NPCs. Base stats would be things like Brigand, Warrior, Berserker, Bard, Assassin, etc. which then get some modifiers slapped onto them depending on the race (dwarves add 2 to the base Con, 1 to base Str, get Darkvision, Advantage on Poison saves, and Resistance to Poison. Orcs add 2 to base Str, 1 to base Con, get Darkvision, Adrenaline Rush and Relentless Endurance, etc.).
Of course they did do something like that back in 3/3.5, I think, so maybe experience has shown that the idea doesn't work as well as I imagine,
Whenever I read, “it will make it hard for new DMs to do this.” What I hear is, I know exactly how to do this myself, but I don’t want to put in the 30 seconds of work it takes to do it.
New DMs have been figuring out how to run the game for 50 years now. It’s easier than ever. They’ll be fine.
As has been pointed out, one of the biggest issues was space. Another was trying to make core books setting agnostic.
There could have been plenty of space, if they had left such nonsense as ‘performers’ out of the book (p. 236). In all honesty, who fills a dungeon with that? Such would be novelty encounter, and as such the stat blocks could also be put into the occasional adventure if they were needed.
There are more examples proving that WotC did not set their priorities right.
Add darkvision and bonus action dash (I don't recommend full-fledged relentless endurance or adrenaline rush due to added bookkeeping and possible CR change).
Presto, you have orcs. I'm not a big fan of the Tough stat block, there should be more variety in CR 1/4 and 1/2 humanoid templates, but there's no real need to call one of them an 'orc',
They rightfully decided angering people who don't see the problems with older depictions of orcs was less of a stock price slip than pissing off people who do see those & have social media proficiency & expertise.
Just because Ed Greenwood made it one way, doesn't mean it's aged well.
Less "XP fodder" stat blocks based on a race/species/culture/ancestry are a good thing anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
As has been pointed out, one of the biggest issues was space. Another was trying to make core books setting agnostic.
There could have been plenty of space, if they had left such nonsense as ‘performers’ out of the book (p. 236). In all honesty, who fills a dungeon with that? Such would be novelty encounter, and as such the stat blocks could also be put into the occasional adventure if they were needed.
There are more examples proving that WotC did not set their priorities right.
Perhaps some people have things happen outside of dungeons.
Really, what you are saying here is that WotC’s priorities don’t align with your own. That’s cool, everyone can and should have their own priorities. But that doesn’t mean either of you are right or wrong.
As has been pointed out, one of the biggest issues was space. Another was trying to make core books setting agnostic.
There could have been plenty of space, if they had left such nonsense as ‘performers’ out of the book (p. 236). In all honesty, who fills a dungeon with that? Such would be novelty encounter, and as such the stat blocks could also be put into the occasional adventure if they were needed.
There are more examples proving that WotC did not set their priorities right.
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.
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.
But, if you want to run an orc-base campaign, and you just add a couple species abilities to an existing stat block, you have tons more choices. The orcs can get smarter and tougher as the PCs do, you can have an orc archmage running the show. Put them in everywhere and give them bigger motivations and make them an ongoing threat.
To me, that’s way more interesting than, here’s your generic low-level bad guy that’s just there to be a tier 1 xp piñata. And if that is what you want, no judgement, sometimes that’s the best choice for a given group. In that case, there’s still the tough stat block option.
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.
For the same reason that elves are not in the Monster manual, and gnomes are not in the Monster manual, and humans are not in the Monster Manual, and dwarves are not in the Monster manual. Because they're not monsters. They are a playable character species.
Hasn't this already been thoroughly hashed out a hundred times already? What are people still not getting?
For the same reason that elves are not in the Monster manual, and gnomes are not in the Monster manual, and humans are not in the Monster Manual, and dwarves are not in the Monster manual. Because they're not monsters. They are a playable character species.
Hasn't this already been thoroughly hashed out a hundred times already? What are people still not getting?
Old habits & problematic traditions are one problem.
Orcs, Goblins & Lolthite Drow are hard for some players to stop mindlessly killing for easy XP..
Staunch abiding by non-5e game author canon is the other problem, as it basically means you're playing Ed Greenwood fanfiction.
'Tis why I now refuse to play in a game that is XP-based and/or uses strictly Ed Greenwood/R.A. Salvatore/Tracy Hickman/Margret Weis/Keith Baker RAW lore.
1st As a matter of fact there are humans as monsters in the MM. The Bandit shows mixed races, but the human bandit is at the very front and centre. Then you have the already mentioned performers. Then there are the Pirates. And you wanna tell me they could not include Orc Warbands, or Orc Marauders?
Actually those are all listed as humanoid, so you can have orc bandits, orc pirates, orc beserkers, orc warriors ...
Quote from ELPIPINO>>Actually those are all listed as humanoid, so you can have orc bandits, orc pirates, orc beserkers, orc warriors ...
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. Or an Elf. Unified stat blocks do not display that. Also, who had the brilliant idea to turn orcs, which are known to be savage and bloodthirsty into a civilised race?
Quote from ELPIPINO>>Actually those are all listed as humanoid, so you can have orc bandits, orc pirates, orc beserkers, orc warriors ...
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. Or an Elf. Unified stat blocks do not display that. Also, who had the brilliant idea to turn orcs, which are known to be savage and bloodthirsty into a civilised race?
You seem to have both a preconceived notion of what an orc bandit "should be" and the experience to be able to turn one of the generic NPC entries into one... so what's the problem?
Appearance? Not even sure why you bothered listing that, since it's literally just how the DM describes it. "Green skin and tusks". boom, orc bandit. Abilities? As mentioned before, give the bandit darkvision and one of the two other abilities (or both if you're feeling frisky and comfortable adjusting CR). Equipment? Again, how is this a problem without a quick solution for any DM that would want to?
There are 10 playable species. If you had an entry for each type of NPC for each species, you now have ~100 actual monsters displaced out of the book. Why does any experienced DM need all of those entries when they can very easily use the NPC statblocks and modify them to their needs.
As for the Drow... you know what still IS in the MM? Driders. You know, Drow that have been corrupted and changed by Lolth to be more than just an evil humanoid NPC you could whip up with a standard block and a tweak or two.
. . .Pretty sure he knows that things can happen outside of dungeons, but dungeons are the stereotypical term, and includes basically any place, where an encounter happens. Hence the name Dungeon Crawling. Yes, there are also players, who enjoy excessive roleplay of their characters, but as you said, each to their own. But when Gary Gygax created D&D he had Dungeon Crawling, (as it is being called, although it can also happen outdoors, or whereever) primarily in mind.
However, the book is called 'Monster Manual', not 'NPC Manual', so one would expect to find Monsters in that book, especially those, which have made a regular appearance...such as orcs. Way more often than hostile performers would cross your paths. . .
But that's kind of the point. Orcs are NPCs (the ones who are not PCs), just like elves are. Are you upset that they left out things like Elven Assassin, Elven Mage, Elven Warrior?
Like I said, I think they could have done a better job by creating some sort of template system with a reasonable number of job-type choices (so your orc warband is largely composed of a type of fighter who relies on big weapons, lighter armor, and numbers, while your elven warband is largely composed of fighters wielding lighter weapons but heavy armor), that then get tweaked by the race (as pointed out, Relentless Endurance and Adrenaline Rush require too much bookkeeping, but you could still give them some sort of ability that mimics those with less bookkeeping such as additional hitpoints and Dash as a bonus action).
I just don't think there's a real point to singling out the absence of orcs over an absence of elves, halflings, gnomes, etc.
. . .Pretty sure he knows that things can happen outside of dungeons, but dungeons are the stereotypical term, and includes basically any place, where an encounter happens. Hence the name Dungeon Crawling. Yes, there are also players, who enjoy excessive roleplay of their characters, but as you said, each to their own. But when Gary Gygax created D&D he had Dungeon Crawling, (as it is being called, although it can also happen outdoors, or whereever) primarily in mind.
However, the book is called 'Monster Manual', not 'NPC Manual', so one would expect to find Monsters in that book, especially those, which have made a regular appearance...such as orcs. Way more often than hostile performers would cross your paths. . .
But that's kind of the point. Orcs are NPCs (the ones who are not PCs), just like elves are. Are you upset that they left out things like Elven Assassin, Elven Mage, Elven Warrior?
I just don't think there's a real point to singling out the absence of orcs over an absence of elves, halflings, gnomes, etc.
By that analogy a dragon ia also an NPC…or a Lich…or an Ogre, or (insert any creature type with communication skills here). But they are not. And neither are orcs. You might now point to the 2024 PHB, and I can tell you WotC made a grave mistake. If I was DMing a campaign with 2024 rules, I’d strictly rule, that those are half-orcs,…as it originally was in 2014, in 4ed and 3rd. Imagine Orcs and Elves in one party. Two species, who waged war on every occasion, mostly initiated by orcs, and still hate each other to death. For those folks, who have been into DnD for as long as I am, there is a real point in that regard,
And if I was WotC, I’d start rectifying more than just that. The Absence of Half-Elves in the PHB is actually even more of a concern than this.
The problem I see, and what kills the entire idea is relativism. Whether it's regarding creatures, or alignments. Some players don't want alignments, because they argue that there is no good, and evil. It's just all different standpoints, different upbringings, whatever. Relativism does neither help in the real world, nor does it in games.
. . .Pretty sure he knows that things can happen outside of dungeons, but dungeons are the stereotypical term, and includes basically any place, where an encounter happens. Hence the name Dungeon Crawling. Yes, there are also players, who enjoy excessive roleplay of their characters, but as you said, each to their own. But when Gary Gygax created D&D he had Dungeon Crawling, (as it is being called, although it can also happen outdoors, or whereever) primarily in mind.
However, the book is called 'Monster Manual', not 'NPC Manual', so one would expect to find Monsters in that book, especially those, which have made a regular appearance...such as orcs. Way more often than hostile performers would cross your paths. . .
But that's kind of the point. Orcs are NPCs (the ones who are not PCs), just like elves are. Are you upset that they left out things like Elven Assassin, Elven Mage, Elven Warrior?
I just don't think there's a real point to singling out the absence of orcs over an absence of elves, halflings, gnomes, etc.
By that analogy a dragon ia also an NPC…or a Lich…or an Ogre, or (insert any creature type with communication skills here). But they are not. And neither are orcs. You might now point to the 2024 PHB, and I can tell you WotC made a grave mistake. If I was DMing a campaign with 2024 rules, I’d strictly rule, that those are half-orcs,…as it originally was in 2014, in 4ed and 3rd. Imagine Orcs and Elves in one party. Two species, who waged war on every occasion, mostly initiated by orcs, and still hate each other to death. For those folks, who have been into DnD for as long as I am, there is a real point in that regard,
And if I was WotC, I’d start rectifying more than just that. The Absence of Half-Elves in the PHB is actually even more of a concern than this.
The problem I see, and what kills the entire idea is relativism. Whether it's regarding creatures, or alignments. Some players don't want alignments, because they argue that there is no good, and evil. It's just all different standpoints, different upbringings, whatever. Relativism does neither help in the real world, nor does it in games.
Not really. Dragons, ogres, and liches all have significant abilities not immediately available to player characters. Your average orc doesn't.
While I would like to see half-elves and half-orcs get updated, it isn't that big an issue. WotC has made it very clear that they are still valid choices for PC races. 2024 PHB only supersedes, it does not remove any races.
Your issue with elves and orcs in the same party is not setting agnostic. Yes, in nearly every setting elves and orcs have fought a lot, but so have elves and dwarves. Saying the blood between them is so bad that they couldn't be together in a party is setting specific and you could just as easily talk about a rift between elves and dwarves that are so serious that they cannot be in the same party.
I'm going to set the issue of relativism aside because it only becomes prominent in specific settings when it is demanded that orcs behave in a specific way. Modulate the interactions so that they are still brutish and aggressive, but no more so than, say, the northern barbarians of Faerun, and there is no more point in arguing about the relativism of orcs than there is in arguing the relativism of northern barbarians.
Incidentally, I will also point out that pretty much every argument you are making can also be made about the Drow, yet you seem to have no problem with them being a player race and left out of the Monster Manual.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok I'm fed up with this. First orcs were removed from the 2024 MM. Along with all humanoid monsters. Their excuse was to use NPC stats. Use a tough in its place. Where is the lore? I thought maybe they would add orc monsters in the forgotten realms book. I could have sworn that there are were several FR novels about how cool orcs were. and how much a part of FR they were. Nope. At least we got some Drow. Why make this choice? Are you saying that I cannot be trusted with a monstrous being wielding an axe that is based on Tolkien and other enemies? The stats for a tough and 2014 orcs are very different. Tell me how having an orc as a monster stat in the MM is offensive to anyone? And orcs are just the most obvious. Deep gnomes, Duergar, Lizardfolk. You have practically removed these from a new GMs toolbox. Not only that but you have reduced the lore to 4E monster manual levels! People use that lore for ideas!. Removing them doesn't help in any way. If you want to make a statement about how not all orcs are brutes and have complex civilization then do that. But removing them from the toolbox is just stupid. A GM should not have to go to earlier editions for inspiration. Mostly because new GMs aren't going to have that stuff available.
You don't appear to be new here, but this argument has been hashed out several times already (the latest one not too long ago). The main points:
1. Lore is setting specific. The core books should be setting agnostic. If you want an orc, add a PC orc species ability to any of the NPC statblocks and you suddenly have an orc. You might have a point about FR, but I'm not an expert.
2. It isn't so much about offense (it's a bit about that) as it is book space and customizability. It is already a big MM (32 more pages than 2014). Now add 5-6 stat blocks for each species that could possibly be antagonistic and you've just added a bunch of text for little actual gain. Brand new DM? Grab the scout block and call it an orcish scout. Kinda new DM? Grab the scout block and add something "orcish" to it, then call it an orcish scout. Experienced DM? You don't need me to tell you how to use the MM.
3. DMs get inspiration from everywhere, older editions included. New DMs will likely be using pre-canned adventures for their first few sessions. The statblocks should either be there or tell the DM where it is (or how to make it) in the MM. Experienced DM? Again, you don't need me to tell you how to mold the MM to your inspiration.
Look, When I first heard they were removing those statblocks, I had a reaction much like you. But since, I've seen that nothing was really taken away. The 9 pages they devoted to NPC statblocks in the back of the 2014 MM are now just a part of the 2024 MM (and expanded) and none of the redundancy of also having an "orc" is there to make room for ~150 more monsters.
Now, would I have organized the 2024 MM differently? Probably. I would have kept the NPC statblocks together, and also the dragon, giant, demon, and devil statblocks together. I see the problem with that, though: at what point do you draw the line? Dragons in 2014 did not include the wyvern or the dragon turtle (both considered dragons, if not "true dragons").
Because WotC was so wise to make orcs instead of half-orcs a default playable race. Do Orcs actually appear as villains in current official adventures?
But then, when I look at the visual portrayal at the racial description in the 2024 Players Handbook...seems WotC went "orc-o-phile".
As has been pointed out, one of the biggest issues was space. Another was trying to make core books setting agnostic.
With that said, it feels to me like they should have done something in the Monster Manual along the lines of base stats and template modifiers for quick NPCs. Base stats would be things like Brigand, Warrior, Berserker, Bard, Assassin, etc. which then get some modifiers slapped onto them depending on the race (dwarves add 2 to the base Con, 1 to base Str, get Darkvision, Advantage on Poison saves, and Resistance to Poison. Orcs add 2 to base Str, 1 to base Con, get Darkvision, Adrenaline Rush and Relentless Endurance, etc.).
Of course they did do something like that back in 3/3.5, I think, so maybe experience has shown that the idea doesn't work as well as I imagine,
Whenever I read, “it will make it hard for new DMs to do this.” What I hear is, I know exactly how to do this myself, but I don’t want to put in the 30 seconds of work it takes to do it.
New DMs have been figuring out how to run the game for 50 years now. It’s easier than ever. They’ll be fine.
There could have been plenty of space, if they had left such nonsense as ‘performers’ out of the book (p. 236). In all honesty, who fills a dungeon with that? Such would be novelty encounter, and as such the stat blocks could also be put into the occasional adventure if they were needed.
There are more examples proving that WotC did not set their priorities right.
How to create an orc stat block:
Presto, you have orcs. I'm not a big fan of the Tough stat block, there should be more variety in CR 1/4 and 1/2 humanoid templates, but there's no real need to call one of them an 'orc',
They rightfully decided angering people who don't see the problems with older depictions of orcs was less of a stock price slip than pissing off people who do see those & have social media proficiency & expertise.
Just because Ed Greenwood made it one way, doesn't mean it's aged well.
Less "XP fodder" stat blocks based on a race/species/culture/ancestry are a good thing anyway.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Perhaps some people have things happen outside of dungeons.
Really, what you are saying here is that WotC’s priorities don’t align with your own. That’s cool, everyone can and should have their own priorities. But that doesn’t mean either of you are right or wrong.
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.
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
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.
But, if you want to run an orc-base campaign, and you just add a couple species abilities to an existing stat block, you have tons more choices. The orcs can get smarter and tougher as the PCs do, you can have an orc archmage running the show. Put them in everywhere and give them bigger motivations and make them an ongoing threat.
To me, that’s way more interesting than, here’s your generic low-level bad guy that’s just there to be a tier 1 xp piñata. And if that is what you want, no judgement, sometimes that’s the best choice for a given group. In that case, there’s still the tough stat block option.
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.
Why are orcs not in the Monster Manual?
For the same reason that elves are not in the Monster manual, and gnomes are not in the Monster manual, and humans are not in the Monster Manual, and dwarves are not in the Monster manual. Because they're not monsters. They are a playable character species.
Hasn't this already been thoroughly hashed out a hundred times already? What are people still not getting?
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
Old habits & problematic traditions are one problem.
Orcs, Goblins & Lolthite Drow are hard for some players to stop mindlessly killing for easy XP..
Staunch abiding by non-5e game author canon is the other problem, as it basically means you're playing Ed Greenwood fanfiction.
'Tis why I now refuse to play in a game that is XP-based and/or uses strictly Ed Greenwood/R.A. Salvatore/Tracy Hickman/Margret Weis/Keith Baker RAW lore.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Actually those are all listed as humanoid, so you can have orc bandits, orc pirates, orc beserkers, orc warriors ...
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. Or an Elf. Unified stat blocks do not display that. Also, who had the brilliant idea to turn orcs, which are known to be savage and bloodthirsty into a civilised race?
You seem to have both a preconceived notion of what an orc bandit "should be" and the experience to be able to turn one of the generic NPC entries into one... so what's the problem?
Appearance? Not even sure why you bothered listing that, since it's literally just how the DM describes it. "Green skin and tusks". boom, orc bandit.
Abilities? As mentioned before, give the bandit darkvision and one of the two other abilities (or both if you're feeling frisky and comfortable adjusting CR).
Equipment? Again, how is this a problem without a quick solution for any DM that would want to?
There are 10 playable species. If you had an entry for each type of NPC for each species, you now have ~100 actual monsters displaced out of the book. Why does any experienced DM need all of those entries when they can very easily use the NPC statblocks and modify them to their needs.
As for the Drow... you know what still IS in the MM? Driders. You know, Drow that have been corrupted and changed by Lolth to be more than just an evil humanoid NPC you could whip up with a standard block and a tweak or two.
But that's kind of the point. Orcs are NPCs (the ones who are not PCs), just like elves are. Are you upset that they left out things like Elven Assassin, Elven Mage, Elven Warrior?
Like I said, I think they could have done a better job by creating some sort of template system with a reasonable number of job-type choices (so your orc warband is largely composed of a type of fighter who relies on big weapons, lighter armor, and numbers, while your elven warband is largely composed of fighters wielding lighter weapons but heavy armor), that then get tweaked by the race (as pointed out, Relentless Endurance and Adrenaline Rush require too much bookkeeping, but you could still give them some sort of ability that mimics those with less bookkeeping such as additional hitpoints and Dash as a bonus action).
I just don't think there's a real point to singling out the absence of orcs over an absence of elves, halflings, gnomes, etc.
By that analogy a dragon ia also an NPC…or a Lich…or an Ogre, or (insert any creature type with communication skills here). But they are not. And neither are orcs. You might now point to the 2024 PHB, and I can tell you WotC made a grave mistake. If I was DMing a campaign with 2024 rules, I’d strictly rule, that those are half-orcs,…as it originally was in 2014, in 4ed and 3rd. Imagine Orcs and Elves in one party. Two species, who waged war on every occasion, mostly initiated by orcs, and still hate each other to death. For those folks, who have been into DnD for as long as I am, there is a real point in that regard,
And if I was WotC, I’d start rectifying more than just that. The Absence of Half-Elves in the PHB is actually even more of a concern than this.
The problem I see, and what kills the entire idea is relativism. Whether it's regarding creatures, or alignments. Some players don't want alignments, because they argue that there is no good, and evil. It's just all different standpoints, different upbringings, whatever. Relativism does neither help in the real world, nor does it in games.
Not really. Dragons, ogres, and liches all have significant abilities not immediately available to player characters. Your average orc doesn't.
While I would like to see half-elves and half-orcs get updated, it isn't that big an issue. WotC has made it very clear that they are still valid choices for PC races. 2024 PHB only supersedes, it does not remove any races.
Your issue with elves and orcs in the same party is not setting agnostic. Yes, in nearly every setting elves and orcs have fought a lot, but so have elves and dwarves. Saying the blood between them is so bad that they couldn't be together in a party is setting specific and you could just as easily talk about a rift between elves and dwarves that are so serious that they cannot be in the same party.
I'm going to set the issue of relativism aside because it only becomes prominent in specific settings when it is demanded that orcs behave in a specific way. Modulate the interactions so that they are still brutish and aggressive, but no more so than, say, the northern barbarians of Faerun, and there is no more point in arguing about the relativism of orcs than there is in arguing the relativism of northern barbarians.
Incidentally, I will also point out that pretty much every argument you are making can also be made about the Drow, yet you seem to have no problem with them being a player race and left out of the Monster Manual.