D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

[Crimson Longinus]

I have been aware of some, let's say 'unfortunate implications' in D&D's description of races at least since the third edition.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Don’t small creatures have reduced carrying capacity?

In case no one else addressed this yet: no.

Small creatures can carry the exact same as medium. They did this so you don't need "small-size" equipment for halflings, gnomes, etc. and a small-sized longsword is just a normal longsword.

FWIW, our houserule is small creatures count their STR as 4 points lower (minimum 3) when calculating encumbrance, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The thing is, ability score increases don’t really do that. The full 8-20 range (or 3-20 range if you roll) is available to characters of any race, and ability score modifiers aren’t a reliable indicator of averages since PCs are by definition not average. The only thing they do is make some race/class combinations more optimal than others.

Are we ready to abandon the idea that some races are more inclined to certain adventuring professions than others? And if not, how do we represent that without ASI?

 

[FrogReaver]

ENWorld thread, Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda? from March 2019. For most of the past year, any thread on the topic got locked. That might be one reason it seemed fine.

These two books cover the subject:
Roger Echo-Hawk, Tolkien in Pawneeland (1st ed 2013)
Helen Young, Race and Popular Fantasy Literature (2018)

The 3e Living Greyhawk module The Only Good Orc... (2005) references the phrase "the only good injun is a dead injun" attributed to 19th century US general Philip Sheridan. The module features an orcish paladin of St Cuthbert, the "good orc" of the title.

that thread went 32 pages. Your viewpoint or something close to it was conveyed in those 32 pages. Those threads get locked because this is essentially a worldview conversation where Certain political parties have adopted the contrary world views. IMO that makes this a political conversation and the politics always eventually Come out which results in the endless back and forths that eventually end in thread closure or bans.

 

[Charlaquin]

Bonuses have big impact on early levels.

That’s kinda the problem. They end up shoehorning characters into certain classes based on their race (or certain races based on their class).

If a person chooses to play a big and strong species they probably want to that to be reflected in the rules, and might feel cheated if character of small and weak species is just as strong as them.

And some people play big and strong species but want to play against type, and feel cheated by being forced to play a suboptimal character if they do so. Since there are other ways to mechanically reflect differences in size and strength that don’t result in players being punished for playing the wrong race/class combinations, I advocate for using such mechanics in place of ability score adjustments.

And a starting Orc can be noticeably stronger than a starting Halfling. (Sure, probably not as much as would be realistic, but it still matters.) A Halfling can catch up with Orc's strength at level 12. By this point we are already entering 'mythic hero' territory, (and most campaings don't even go this far) so realism doesn't matter that much by then.

Realism doesn’t matter at any point, it’s a game about imaginary elves in a made-up world. What does matter is that you can’t play an orc wizard or a Halfling barbarian without having to suck at it for more than half of the campaign, assuming a 20-level campaign, which are a significant minority - most games end by or before 10th level, so you might never be able to play an optimal character if you don’t play a class whose primary ability your race gets a bonus in.

Furthermore, I feel that dex and strength are stats where big disparities are fine, as most fighting classes can be built to run on either, so as long as you can get a decent score in one of them you're good to go.

Assuming you want to play a martial class (other than monk), and that you see a quick, nimble fighter and a strong, brutal fighter as essentially interchangeable. That’s not a small ask.

So yeah, I strongly feel that lore of the species should actually be reflected in the mechanics. I'm fully supportive of making orcs not to be just stupid evil caricatures but I don't want species to just become skins and mechanics becoming completely detached from the lore.

There are mechanics other than ability scores. We can make races play differently from one another without also punishing players who want to make characters that don’t conform to the standard race/class combinations.

 

[Charlaquin]

Are we ready to abandon the idea that some races are more inclined to certain adventuring professions than others?

Yes. That’s literally the point of removing racial ability score increases.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. That’s literally the point of removing racial ability score increases.

Having races be mechanically different in ways meaningful to game play is one of the main reasons we have different races at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And some people play big and strong species but want to play against type, and feel cheated by being forced to play a suboptimal character if they do so.

Yes, that can be a problem. Generally the species should grant some things that are generally useful for many classes. For example a big species could be more resilient, and that is useful for everyone, including casters. Also, balance of the game is not perfect anyway. Wizards are better than Rangers. So small discrepancies between the species is acceptable too. This is a co-op and not a competitive game.

Since there are other ways to mechanically reflect differences in size and strength that don’t result in players being punished for playing the wrong race/class combinations, I advocate for using such mechanics in place of ability score adjustments.

There is an ability score called 'strength'. As long as that score exists, it should be a measure of strength.

Realism doesn’t matter at any point, it’s a game about imaginary elves in a made-up world.

Verisimilitude matter to me, it may not matter to you.

What does matter is that you can’t play an orc wizard or a Halfling barbarian without having to suck at it for more than half of the campaign, assuming a 20-level campaign, which are a significant minority - most games end by or before 10th level, so you might never be able to play an optimal character if you don’t play a class whose primary ability your race gets a bonus in.

And then the species and classes should be constructed in such a manner that they allow different builds to be viable without homogenising everything to be the same. For example there could be better rules support for dex barbarians.

Assuming you want to play a martial class (other than monk), and that you see a quick, nimble fighter and a strong, brutal fighter as essentially interchangeable. That’s not a small ask.

They're not interchangeable, but they can be roughly equally effective. And that's the point. It is fine if halflings favour dex agility based buildsand orcs favour strength-based builds. This reinforces their lore, it makes them feel different without either of them feeling worse. Homogenising everything to be identical is just pointless and boring.

There are mechanics other than ability scores. We can make races play differently from one another without also punishing players who want to make characters that don’t conform to the standard race/class combinations.

Yes, there are other mechanics. Ability scores are just a part of the toolbox. An useful part that should not be jettisoned. And of course other mechanics can just as easily favour specific classes. How useful you think Mountain Dwarf armour training is to a fighter or or Half-Orc's savage attacks to a caster?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. That’s literally the point of removing racial ability score increases.

You can't stop at ability scores though. You need to get rid of a lot of the other features too. Most of them are not equally useful to all classes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s kinda the problem. They end up shoehorning characters into certain classes based on their race (or certain races based on their class).


And some people play big and strong species but want to play against type, and feel cheated by being forced to play a suboptimal character if they do so. Since there are other ways to mechanically reflect differences in size and strength that don’t result in players being punished for playing the wrong race/class combinations, I advocate for using such mechanics in place of ability score adjustments.


Realism doesn’t matter at any point, it’s a game about imaginary elves in a made-up world. What does matter is that you can’t play an orc wizard or a Halfling barbarian without having to suck at it for more than half of the campaign, assuming a 20-level campaign, which are a significant minority - most games end by or before 10th level, so you might never be able to play an optimal character if you don’t play a class whose primary ability your race gets a bonus in.

Realism has to be your starting point, so you have somewhere to stand when you start generating the fantastical elements of your story. Also, I hardly think having a 16 in your primary score is sucking.

Assuming you want to play a martial class (other than monk), and that you see a quick, nimble fighter and a strong, brutal fighter as essentially interchangeable. That’s not a small ask.


There are mechanics other than ability scores. We can make races play differently from one another without also punishing players who want to make characters that don’t conform to the standard race/class combinations.

Like what mechanics? That is part of what I was asking in my OP: what are we using describe races, both mechanically and in the lore? Both are important.