does anyone else think half-orcs get gypped?

Enforcer said:

You mean "Strength is a poor ability for a caster?" 'Cause I agree with that. For a melee person, as I mentioned above, Strength is the bee's knees.

Click to expand...

And for a non melee character its completely worthless.

Enforcer said:

No, because a half-orc's Strength lets the Fighter do +1 to hit and damage compared to non half-orc Fighters. And more with two-handers, and even more with Power Attack while having the same chance to hit.

Click to expand...

And for non-Fighter/Barbarian, it lets them do diddly squat. For Swashbucklers, and light fighters, its no better than good dex. For Scout, its no better than dex. So for 1 underpowered class, and 1 average class, Strength is a good ability? Woo hoo! Sign me up!

Look, just because in 1e, your fighter had 18/00 and it was godly does not make Strength better than Intelligence in 3.5. Sorry.

Enforcer said:

I think half-orc melee characters are perfectly fine, yes, because Strength is the most important ability for melee outside of builds specially crafted (i.e. that make trade-offs) to mitigate a mediocre Strength (e.g. Swashbuckler from Complete Warrior or TWF builds that try to do more damage through more attacks).

Click to expand...

I think Half-Orc Fighters are mediocre. They cant intimidate, they are worse than the worst fighter as unless they pump int they get 0 skill points, in short, they suck. As Barbarians they fare slightly better, as at least they get 2 skill points there. I know, lets make a class thats good for one class, but not as good as dwarves, and waste space in the PHB by making them core! Or not.

Enforcer said:

Because Con isn't as good as Strength in melee. Which is better in melee, a few more hp (hardly any increase at low levels) or the ability to kill a guy faster so he gets to make fewer attacks--any one of which can totally destroy the Con hp bonus and then some?

Click to expand...

Frankly, since all races can be all classes, this is the single weakest part of your argument. Con is good for every single class. Strength is a dump stat for tons of classes. Nobody is arguing Half-Orcs are better than dwarves for VERY good reason. Strength is NOT better than Con, Con is the single most important ability score in the entire game. Strength is ok for specific builds in specific classes only.

Enforcer said:

For non-melee characters, most certainly. For melee characters, I disagree. For those that want to pick up a sharp piece of steel and do the most damage possible with it from day one, half-orcs can't be beat by any race in the PHB.

Click to expand...

+1 hit, +1 dmg, +1.5 dmg with a two hander. Thats your big trump card. Cant intimidate, get no skills, no improved trip, no combat expertise. You know, I simply can't understand where anyone makes these statements. They make no sense. Doing slightly more damage at the cost of the rest of your abilities in 2 classes, and being pure awful at every other class makes the race awful. I see no argument that being an OK Barbarian, but not the best choice, and being a mediocre fighter, and being terrible as: Sorceror, Bard, Psion, Cleric(Assuming you want to turn undead.) Wizard, Warlock.

Half-Orc is slightly better than Kobold. Slightly. Thats my stand on it. And only because Kobold gets -2 con. If you removed the -2 con, Kobold would be head and shoulders better.

seans23 said:

Not exactly. Elves get +2 Dex, -2 Con in the SRD.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#elves

Some subraces in the SRD have int bonuses:

Drow get +2 Int, +2 Cha (and a Level Adjustment of 2)

Gray Elves get +2 Int, +2 Dex, -2 Con, -2 Str.

Click to expand...

And following the logic that Strength is more important, they should get an extra +2 somewhere to balance out the penalty.


Half-orcs are seriously screwed over. "Big dumb ugly strong guy" is not a way to make a race interesting.

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.

Click to expand...

Enforcer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, Enforcer, I love it when people agree... and we do completely agree. Still, I love it too when people read threads before they answer

When you look at races, you should look at the best potential of that race.

+2 to the str is very good for a melee race. It doesn't matter that a caster wouldn't benefit from the strength bonus...a caster simply won't be one. If he wants to play a combination that is underpowered, that the caster's perogative.

So to me, its not that the stat bonuses of the half-orc hurt non fighter classes, its just that they have no more bonuses. Dwarves get +2 to poison saves and the BIG one in my mind, +2 to all spells and SLA. That's about as good as a +2 to will saves right there, which is a fighter's achilles heel...and of course the bonus to reflex saves, which are also weak for a fighter. A half-orc only gets the +2 str, that's it. Its just not enough in my mind.

Seeten said:

You know, I simply can't understand where anyone makes these statements. They make no sense. Doing slightly more damage at the cost of the rest of your abilities in 2 classes, and being pure awful at every other class makes the race awful. I see no argument that being an OK Barbarian, but not the best choice, and being a mediocre fighter, and being terrible as: Sorceror, Bard, Psion, Cleric(Assuming you want to turn undead.) Wizard, Warlock.

Click to expand...

I agree with this completely. Most races are really great for at least one class, yet still functionally adequate for most other classes, if not all other classes, with rare exceptions. Half-Orcs seem to be designed to only be good for one role, and abysmally unsuited for any other endeavor.

I like a lot of the suggested fixes, and I will likely re-design the Half-Orc to have a choice of a few of these options to reflect the adaptability/variability of such a half-breed race.

Darklone said:

Don't get me wrong, Enforcer, I love it when people agree... and we do completely agree. Still, I love it too when people read threads before they answer

Click to expand...

Well...it was worth repeating.

AbeTheGnome said:

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?

Click to expand...

I think it would be perfectly fine and balanced.

Stalker0 said:

So to me, its not that the stat bonuses of the half-orc hurt non fighter classes, its just that they have no more bonuses. Dwarves get +2 to poison saves and the BIG one in my mind, +2 to all spells and SLA. That's about as good as a +2 to will saves right there, which is a fighter's achilles heel...and of course the bonus to reflex saves, which are also weak for a fighter. A half-orc only gets the +2 str, that's it. Its just not enough in my mind.

Click to expand...

How about:

Empty headed: Half orcs have a +2 bonus against mind affecting spells and effects.

Abused: Can Take Die Hard feat without meeting prerequisite.

Kinslayer: +1 to hit orcs in melee

-These are human raised traits-

Labourer +50% carring capacity

Thrown down the well and came right back: +2 to swim and climb checks.

-These are orc raised traits-

Orcish leader: +2 to Leadership score if cohort and at least 50% of followers have orc blood.

Beast rider +2 to ride checks and handle animal on dire wolves [or other campaign specific orcish mount].

Nobody's bitch: +4 to on checks to escape grapple and break pins.

The pretty face: +3 on diplomacy checks with orcs, gnolls, gobliniods, minotaurs and non-good giants.

Seeten said:

And for a non melee character its completely worthless.

Click to expand...

Right...I said that already.

And for non-Fighter/Barbarian, it lets them do diddly squat. For Swashbucklers, and light fighters, its no better than good dex. For Scout, its no better than dex. So for 1 underpowered class, and 1 average class, Strength is a good ability? Woo hoo! Sign me up!

Click to expand...

If the Swashbuckler or Scout wants to do more damage, of course Strength is useful. Who cares how well you can hit with Weapon Finesse if the guy you're hitting doesn't care? They're not going to turn down a higher Strength if they can get it. And Swashbucklers need one stat for to hit, another for damage (and only after level 3). Strength-focused melee guys need just one stat for both.

Look, just because in 1e, your fighter had 18/00 and it was godly does not make Strength better than Intelligence in 3.5. Sorry.

Click to expand...

Never played 1e, actually, and even if I did it wouldn't make the above relevant in the least. Your argument makes no sense, however, 18/00 gives a +3 hit and +6 damage (at least in Baldur's Gate--I'm assuming it was the same in 1e). An 18 Str in 3.5 gives a +4/+4...or a +4/+6 with a two-hander. Pretty much the same one-handed (and in 3.5 Str 18 is even better two-handed than 18/00 in 1e!), but according to you that's godly. A Half-Orc with a Str 20 is even better than your godly 18/00.

I think Half-Orc Fighters are mediocre. They cant intimidate, they are worse than the worst fighter as unless they pump int they get 0 skill points, in short, they suck. As Barbarians they fare slightly better, as at least they get 2 skill points there. I know, lets make a class thats good for one class, but not as good as dwarves, and waste space in the PHB by making them core! Or not.

Click to expand...

Skill ranks will beat Cha modifier every time...even with a Cha 6 you can still get a +2 Intimidate at level 1. And note I advocated an Intimidate bonus above.

Anyone who chooses Fighter for their skill points is making a bad decision to begin with... Also, you get a minimum of 1 skill point/level no matter what your Int is, so I don't understand the 0 skill points thing.

Frankly, since all races can be all classes, this is the single weakest part of your argument. Con is good for every single class. Strength is a dump stat for tons of classes. Nobody is arguing Half-Orcs are better than dwarves for VERY good reason. Strength is NOT better than Con, Con is the single most important ability score in the entire game. Strength is ok for specific builds in specific classes only.

Click to expand...

I agree with Con being good for all classes. It's not the most important in the game, as you yourself stated when talking about mental stats for casters... Con, like other stats, is situational. And I would argue that Con is less important for high HD classes than it is for puny Wizards and the like. I'm not arguing that Half-Orcs are better than Dwarves for all classes. I never have, and never will, 'cause it just ain't true. I'm arguing that Half-Orcs are better than Dwarves for melee characters and they're much better for Barbarians.

+1 hit, +1 dmg, +1.5 dmg with a two hander. Thats your big trump card. Cant intimidate, get no skills, no improved trip, no combat expertise. You know, I simply can't understand where anyone makes these statements. They make no sense. Doing slightly more damage at the cost of the rest of your abilities in 2 classes, and being pure awful at every other class makes the race awful. I see no argument that being an OK Barbarian, but not the best choice, and being a mediocre fighter, and being terrible as: Sorceror, Bard, Psion, Cleric(Assuming you want to turn undead.) Wizard, Warlock.

Click to expand...

I've gone over Intimidate (ranks trump stat every time) and the 0 skill point rules error you've made. Barbarians can't use Combat Expertise while raging anyways, and yes, their Int penalty makes that line of feats hard to get. Just like halflings and gnomes generally don't get the Power Attack line of feats.

However, your argument that Half-Orcs don't make great Barbarians and Fighters is just silly. Those classes have one job (and no, it isn't skill points), and that's dealing the melee damage and surviving hits if anyone manages to live through round 1 with Thog the Half-Orc. Half-Orcs have the clear advantage in the damage category. They indisputably do more melee damage than any other race. With Power Attack they're downright vicious--again, +4 damage at level 1 with Power Attack with the same chance to hit as the non-Power Attack human or dwarf, and they'll continue to be better through level 20.

As for taking the hits, with a d10 or d12 hit die, they're perfectly fine-.

Half-Orc is slightly better than Kobold. Slightly. Thats my stand on it. And only because Kobold gets -2 con. If you removed the -2 con, Kobold would be head and shoulders better.

Click to expand...

Thog crush puny kobolds.

Klaus said:

Of course, the 3.0 DMG already suggested allowing gnomes and half-orcs to take Scent as a feat, with, IIRC, a prerequisite of Wis 13+.

Woot! It's a Rules Forum question again!

Click to expand...

fabulous.

oh, and for everyone who asked, let me reiterate: IMC, there's no such thing as half-orcs. just orcs. orcs that use the stats of half-orcs. so yes, full-blooded orcs would get the scent ability too... and probably the intimidate bonus.