D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Bedrockgames]

And, before you get too righteous about the disabled, allow me to introduce you to a royal painter for three of the English Monarchs, including Queen Victoria.
View attachment 396421

Sarah Biffin was born without arms. The above is a Self-Portrait she painted of herself, by holding the brush in her mouth.

Yes, AI makes it easier for people to make art. But for people who truly, truly desire to make art... literally nothing is capable of stopping them short of death or full body paralysis. Most of those claiming it "democratizes" art just don't feel like they should need to devote themselves to the practice of it.

I am no huge AI fan, but I think telling disabled people they shouldn't have access to tools like this because they can just put a brush in their mouth if they really want it is kind of crummy ma. I mean yes, many people with disabilities will overcome them or surmount the challenges to do things like make great art, but some people need tools to compensate for their disability. This is definitely an area I wouldn't mind seeing AI used in

 

[Chaosmancer]

It was a problem then, for me. It's more of a problem now, for me, because we've extended the number of creatures excluded from the MM, and very inconsistently so, at that. To me, it is very weird that you can't find an elf or an orc in the MM.

Not sure why you ask what I am removing? I'm not seeing this as a zero sum situation.

Actually, hate to tell you, but it IS a zero sum game. We have already heard the designers talk, multiple times, about how hard it was to fit everything inside the book. Adding an additional 60 to 120 statblocks (5 to 10 options per species, which wouldn't even get close to the amount of variety we can currently create) would have necessitated losing a LOT of content.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The more stat blocks the better.

But I would have even settled for a table with traits to apply to the basic NPCs to give them a bit of customization/flair.

What they have currently goes back to the days of 1E where you'd get like "in large groups they are led by a 4th level warrior and have a 20% chance of a shaman of up to 5th level" genericness, which I don't think is a feature.

Player's Handbook, which you need to reference anyways to use any spells on the statblocks in the MM.

 

[ezo]

A male gnome has the same range of strength as a male half-orc.

But... they don't. You said it yourself: 18/50 vs. 18/99.

So, potentially an extra +1 to hit, +2 to damage, +100 lbs weight allowance, +16.7% open doors (plus any chance to open magical doors), and +15% to bend bars/lift gates.

So the difference between a gnome and a half-orc is that the orc has a +1 strength

Which means their average strengths for the half-orc is higher than the gnome, and the half-orc has higher strength potential.

 

[Maxperson]

View attachment 396417
Gnome (1e MM)

View attachment 396418
Orc (2e MC)

That orc is way beefier than the gnome. Remember, that gnome is small, so his arms are like an eighth as thick as that orc's, and the orc has defined muscles.

 

[Maxperson]

A few other points of interest.

In 1e, a gnome has no ability adjustments. They must have a 6 strength minimum and cap at 18 (15 for females) and thus can have exceptional (%) Strength, though gnomes can only go to a 50% and half-orcs to 99% (only humans can get a 100%) Half-orcs also have a min of 6 and max of 18 (both genders). So the difference between a gnome and a half-orc is that the orc has a +1 strength (can't go above 18/99) and gnome females are called 3 points lower (which is an issue of gender, not race). A male gnome has the same range of strength as a male half-orc.

I mean, you just showed that they don't have the same range, as the range is 6-18/50 for gnomes and 6 to 18/99 for half-orcs. The half-orc has greater range.

 

[Remathilis]

But... they don't. You said it yourself: 18/50 vs. 18/99.

So, potentially an extra +1 to hit, +2 to damage, +100 lbs weight allowance, +16.7% open doors (plus any chance to open magical doors), and +15% to bend bars/lift gates.


Which means their average strengths for the half-orc is higher than the gnome, and the half-orc has higher strength potential.

So the difference between a 3 ft gnome and a 7 ft half-orc is 40% of exception strength (if you roll an 18) and a 5% adjustment between a roll of 6 and 17?

That better shows my point than his.

 

[Maxperson]

So the difference between a 3 ft gnome and a 7 ft half-orc is 40% of exception strength (if you roll an 18) and a 5% adjustment between a roll of 6 and 17?

That better shows my point than his.

This difference is that the 18/99 half orc is very nearly twice is as strong as the 18/50 gnome. Look up the strength numbers from AD&D.

 

[Hussar]

You don't have to. Also I don't think I have been proven wrong by anything.

Of course not. When you assertions are so vague and you refuse to provide any actual proof and refuse to accept any counter information, it does make it hard to prove anything.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So the difference between a 3 ft gnome and a 7 ft half-orc is 40% of exception strength (if you roll an 18) and a 5% adjustment between a roll of 6 and 17?

That better shows my point than his.

This difference is that the 18/99 half orc is very nearly twice is as strong as the 18/50 gnome. Look up the strength numbers from AD&D.

Here you guys go (1e and 2e)