does anyone else think half-orcs get gypped?

[frankthedm]

i think this kind of statement is representative of what i'm talking about. "my half-orc barbarian is fine with his stats." well, of course he is. he's a barbarian. he's got a good STR score that will be an asset when he rages. what if i don't want to play my half-orc as a barbarian, and, heaven forbid, sidestep a cliche? i don't think half-orcs should be unduy pigeonholed.

In a ruleset that focuses on combat the damage dealers have to be carefully balances. If one pulls the half-orc out of thier pidgeon hole with more bonuses, care has to taken to make sure other races remain desirable for combatants.

Half Orcs seem to be somewhat lacking. I believe that it was a conscious (or possibly unconscious) decision to penalize the 'ugly' or 'evil' race just a little bit more over the 'goodly' or traditional races, to help encourage players to choose the more iconic and goodly types.

Exactly! Half orcs are undisirables. The ruleset has to ensure that the choice to play one is not overly attractive. Just as LA are supposed to be set to protect the PHB races, the Half orc racial bonuses protect the races of the Fellowship. The race is a "Yes, you can play it if you want." Not a "Yes, you should play it."

http://www.toddlockwood.com/galleries/concept/02/degrees_orcdom.shtml

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Exactly! Half orcs are undisirables. The ruleset has to ensure that the choice to play one is not overly attractive. Just as LA are supposed to be set to protect the PHB races, the Half orc racial bonuses protect the races of the Fellowship. The race is a "Yes, you can play it if you want." Not a "Yes, you should play it."

Actually, I think you have it backwards. "Undesirable" classes and races usually get MORE benefits and are slightly OVERpowered to encourage more people to play them. Look at Elves, for example. I think it is pretty clear that Dwarven, Halfing and Gnome racial traits are superior to those of the Elf. Why? Because Elves tend to be one of the, if not the most popular race in the game. I've met many, many people who have played Elves, yet few who want to play a hairy, surly Dwarf. So, to encourage more people to play Dwarves, they were given racial bonuses superior to those that Elves get.

The same is true of the Cleric class. Few people want to be a healer, and even fewer want to be a preachy, devout follower of a God. Lots of people, on the other hand, want to play Wizards. That is why Clerics are much more powerful than Wizards in the game.

 

[Bihor]

I don't think it's a question of the half-orc actually being underpowered. It's a question of them being underflavored compared to the other non-humans.
The skill bonuses that elves, dwarves, halfllings, and gnomes get aren't very powerful abilities, but they add nice flavor.

I'm with him.

A couple years ago on this board there was the same discution and I took the suggestion of Enworlders and made my Half-Ord with +2 Intitative, +4 fort save against poison and the eat anything (the ability to eat eat anything food.)
these changes made that race more appeling to my players.

 

[was]

I do think that they are a little lacking...

 

[Aaron L]

I'm with him.

A couple years ago on this board there was the same discution and I took the suggestion of Enworlders and made my Half-Ord with +2 Intitative, +4 fort save against poison and the eat anything (the ability to eat eat anything food.)
these changes made that race more appeling to my players.

HAHA, I am SO giving half-orcs eat anything now!

EAT ANYTHING (EX): Half-Orcs have cast iron stomachs. They may eat, digest, and derive nourishment from anything even remotely organic, such as: coal, wood, cloth, slime, dirt, and garbage.

 

[Grog]

Actually, what gets me about dwarves is that they get both "+2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison" and "+2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects" -- which translates into effectively "+2 on all saving throws except for pitfalls and rat bites".

And breath weapons. And traps. And lots of supernatural abilities.

That's powerful. Way powerful. Way more powerful than any bonus feat or +2 stat.

I strongly disagree that it's way more powerful than Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialization, or Improved Initiative (kill that wizard before he can even cast a spell on you).

Now as to the dwarven movement penalty, this is pretty much negated by a single level of barbarian.

Not if he wants to wear heavy armor. Or play a class that requires a lawful alignment.

 

[nittanytbone]

Note that a lot of this reflects the original 1E conception of half-orcs.

In 1E, half-orcs could ONLY be the following:

-Excellent fighters (capable of reaching Lord status)
-Excellent assassins (unlimited in advancement)
-Good thieves (Great climbers; penalties to other skills, no unlimited advancement)
-Poor clerics (Capped at level 4!!!)

That's it. Their racial abilities were quite light as they only got a few bonus languages and infravision.

In 3.5, much of this remains. Half-orcs make poor arcane casters (INT and CHA penalties), poor paladins (CHA penalty), good brute-force combat rogues (but not skill monkies) due to mobility and strength, decent battle-clerics at lower levels (no WIS penalty; CHA penalty doesn't hurt until you need to fuel DMM Persistent for Divine Power), and excellent fighters (barbarian favored class, bonus to STR). They make good climbers (Climb is a STR based skill), just as they did in 1E.

I think the moral is, don't try to put a round peg in a square hole. Don't expect to play a skill monkey, arcane caster, or shining templar with a half-orc. Expect to be steered mechanically towards a combat brute who is a bit rough around the edges.

One quick and easy "fix" is to use the DMG suggested rule for swapping STR for CHA on some intimidation checks, or give the half-orc a circumstance bonus in such situations when he has a big bloody greatsword and is really really mad.

 

[Destil]

Personally, I'm a bit sick of halfbreeds. It's just silly. IMC I bumped up half orc stat bonuses a little and made them full blow orcs.

 

[anon]

[Moderator Edit]

Note above, where Umbran directs everyone to drop the linguistic discussion.

-Hyp.

[/Moderator Edit]