does anyone else think half-orcs get gypped?
Darklone
Registered User
Just wanted to point out that a +2 to the mental spellcasting attribute means at low levels 1 spell/spelllevel more per day. That's huge. The DC isn't that important, but 5 instead of 4 spells rules.Falling Icicle said:
And halforcs str +2:
As planned, use point buy 25. Noone does, but the class was balanced with point buy 25 in mind. Build a group, usually the only one with str 18 will be the halforc. Give him a twohanded weapon. He will cause +6 damage, the others +4. Two points of damage. Like Weapon Spec, a feat most fighters have and love. With the bonus of +1 to hit, it's like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. At low levels the halforc kills enemies with one or two hit, the others kill them with two or three hits. One hit difference means a lot for how many resources are wasted for the victory.
I do think that's a huge bonus. Granted, the difference gets smaller at higher point buys and at higher levels, but that's your type of game and you're free to change that. Noone forces you to play your game in a certain way. Just don't try to convince others that something is "broken" if you "broke" it for yourself
Joke:
Moderators: I do want a rule that people with 3d10 drop lowest character generation are not allowed in "halforcs are weak" threads
Last edited:
Klaus
First Post
The best class to work around the half-orc penalties is rogue. The -2 Int is dilluted by the ungodly ammount of skill points the rogue gets. A half-orc with 8 Int still gets 7 skill points per level, which is enough to maximize Hide, Move Silently, Climb, Spot, Listen, Search and Disable Device. The -2 Cha is irrelevant if you don't plan on being a social rogue. The +2 Str bumps up the medium BAB and the darkvision helps a lot.
You could conceivably play an elite array half-orc rogue with Str 15 Dex 15 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 12 Cha 6.
You could conceivably play an elite array half-orc rogue with Str 15 Dex 15 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 12 Cha 6.
frankthedm
First Post
Also +2 to a mental stat is far too easy easily make into a +3 with the aging rules. Yes, you have to give up points in Str, Dex and Con, but aging one's character for mental stat bumps is completly within the rules. Elves make great casters because they have soo many years of middle and old age to work with, even in time spanning campaigns.Darklone said:
The Stat penaties from aging to midle age are -1, -1, -1, +1, +1, +1; those are are pretty easy to optimise due to the ease of hiding odd penaties. Old age's -3, -3, -3, +2, +2, +2; is a but harder to optimise, but can be done IMHO. Venerable's -6, -6, -6, +3, +3, +3 really is not for those heading down into dungeons though..
Enforcer
Explorer
I disagree with your take on Strength, because it's not always just a +1 to damage, particularly for the typical greatsword/greataxe wielding barbarian. No other ability score gets a 1.5x bonus depending on a simple character choice.Falling Icicle said:I don't think that a +2 Str is any more beneficial to a fighter type than a +2 mental attribute is to a spellcaster. A +1 save DC makes about a 5% difference in whether the spell "hits"? Well a +1 attack bonus has the same benefit to a melee attack. And a +1 dmg, while helpful, is not that big of a deal.
In my experience, all of the attributes have an approximately equal impact in the game. Of course, a particular stat will be more useful to some classes than others. A high Cha is very helpful to a Bard or Sorcerer, far more so than Str. But the opposite is true to a Fighter or Barbarian character. This doesn't mean that one stat should be worth more than another as far as balancing races go. Yes, I am aware that the DMG says otherwise. I guess that means that I disagree with the DMG on this one. Just because it's in a core book doesn't make it right. If that was the case, this game wouldn't have had so many editions.
Example: Human Barbarian with Str 16 and a greatsword does 2d6+4, 2d6+7 while raging. The Half-Orc with the same points or roll put into Strength gets an 18 and 2d6+6 or 2d6+9 while raging. That may not seem like a big difference, but it all adds up, especially at lower levels. To put it another way, it's like the half-orc gets Weapon Focus (all melee weapons) for free, and Weapon Specialization (two-handed weapons) much of the time--depending on the exact Strength score. That's pretty awesome. And it's why half-orcs make great Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and even Monks.
With Power Attack it's even better. Using the same two guys above, the half-orc can take a -1 to hit with Power Attack, still have an equal chance to hit as the human, and now have a +4 damage advantage (+2 from Str, +2 for a two-handed Power Attack).
As you said, ability scores aren't equal depending on class and focus, but for most melee-focused characters, especially the two-handed weapon guys, Str is king, even if Con is usually #2.
Show me an easily obtainable set of circumstances where any of the other ability scores get 1.5x their modifier (to DC for the spellcasting stats, to AC for Dex, heck even an extra boost for skills) and I'll happily agree that they're equal to Strength and that the half-orc is therefore given the short end of the stick. I see no problem with adding an Intimidate bonus though--I'd personally do a +3, for a net +2 to Intimidate, but that's me.
Of course, all that said, I'd probably still pick a dwarf for the lack of half-orc flavor mentioned previously in the thread. Eberron has mitigated some of this, however, what with cool orc/half-orc druids and a half-orc (and human) dragonmarked house and all.
[quasi-relevant rambling] My brother once played a great half-orc Fighter who played dumb--he rolled so well for stats that his Int was still a 14 after the Int penalty, and would lull his enemies into a false sense of security by doing the "Thog smash!" bit, only to surprise them with smart tactics later on. That combined with the disgusting amount of damage he'd dish out made for a damn effective, and interesting, character. [/rambling]
AbeTheGnome
First Post
back to the matter at hand...
anyhow... i noticed that only one post out of 60-something has addressed my original question. would giving half-orcs (or full-blooded orcs in my campaign), the scent ability unbalance the race to the point of LA? they would have to take a feat (track) to get optimal use out of it anyway. and it would add a lot of "flavor" to a statistically bland race. any takers?
anyhow... i noticed that only one post out of 60-something has addressed my original question. would giving half-orcs (or full-blooded orcs in my campaign), the scent ability unbalance the race to the point of LA? they would have to take a feat (track) to get optimal use out of it anyway. and it would add a lot of "flavor" to a statistically bland race. any takers?
Last edited:
AbeTheGnome said:
I think you already knew the answer to that question, even before you posted it. It's obvious that most posters here think that Half-Orcs are a tad on the light side balance-wise already.
And, that is a house rules forum question, not a rules question. Hence, the number of rules balance oriented answers in this thread.
szilard
First Post
AbeTheGnome said:
Scent is nice, but I don't think it is overbalancing - especially in a race that already has darkvision. It will, however, change some things. Ranger will be a fairly popular class choice (or at least dip) in order to grab Track for free. I don't think this is bad - Ranger seems as good a class for half-orcs as Barbarian does.
Do you give full-blooded orcs the Scent ability as well?
-Stuart
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
(Psi)SeveredHead said:
On the balance I think a Half-Orc Barbarian in chain shirt moving 40' holds its own with your Dwarf Fighter in full plate moving 20'.
As pointed out already, Half-Orcs are the only race for which the PC is likely to have (or afford, if you prefer) a starting 18 Str. That is a huge boost when you are using 2-handed weapons at low levels.
