does anyone else think half-orcs get gypped?

[Darklone]

I must be playing a different game than all of you.

In my games, the Clerics are casting game breaking spells, the Mages tossing game breaking spells, and the Half-Orc Barbarians are running around the battlefield trying desperately to get a swing in ...

Also, I am not saying I'm not a powergamer, I most certainly am, and thats why I invariably played elf in 2nd ed, and Human in 3rd.

Half-Orc Barbarian I got stuck with in a current campaign, and their pure suck factor is off the charts.

Looks like you have missed all these "Mages suck in 3rd edition, our fighters/barbarians waste all enemies!" threads in the last years. Either it's a player issue or your type of game does not have enough encounters per day. By the rules, D&D should be rather balanced.

 

[Darklone]

Well, for starters, comparing Barbarians of any race to Fighters is literally apples and oranges.

Let me do my own comparison here:

A.) 1st lvl 1/2 Orc Barb, 20 STR (24 while raging), Power Attack; greatsword

B.) 1st lvl Human Barb, 18 STR (22 while raging), Power Attack, Cleave (human bonus feat); greatsword
...

Now take the stats as by the normal point buy and you'll have the halforc with str 18 and the human with str 16. Much bigger difference.

 

[Felnar]

minor nitpicks but
KarinsDad i think you forgot the +1 attack vs orcs in your halforc vs dwarf calculations
(circumstantial, but dwarves get combat bonuses versus orcs, goblinoids, giants, orges, trolls)
and
why does the sword and board dwarf fighter use a +2 longsword when they could've have a +2 dwarven waraxe
---------------------------

in melee, i think halforcs are balanced enough with humans but i'd vote weaker than dwarves.
outside combat, they are definitely subpar

against brute type enemies maybe that extra few damage is better
but against...
ranged attackers? (dwaves movement = halforcs in medium and heavy armor)
spellcasters? (dwarf/elf spell resists)
lots of commonmonsters? (orcs, goblinoids, giants, orges, trolls)

outside of combat for...
skill monkeying? (one less maxed skill; half the rogue skill list tied to int/cha)
dungeoncrawling? (stonecunning grants passive search checks against stonework traps, elves get passive checks, racial penalty to search vs racial bonus)
social/knowledge skills? (skill checks fail by "just one" just like melee attacks; opposed checks)

add on top of all that
halforcs have the least flavor of the races and what flavor they have is negative (uncivilized, associated with evil race), depending on the DM style and campaign setting

halforcs do one thing great (twohanded weapons), a couple things well (non-CE fighter/ranger), and tons of things worse than all the other races
do players ever say "whew, good thing i'm a halforc"?

i dont think halforcs are vastly underpowered, but they're sure stuck in one niche
halforcs are unsuitted to 3 of the 4 archtype party roles (most/all other races are better)
low point-buys (25-28) are important for keeping RAW halforc close to the other races

 

[Thurbane]

Now take the stats as by the normal point buy and you'll have the halforc with str 18 and the human with str 16. Much bigger difference.

Well, our group doesn't use point buy or arrays, so I do often forget about the impact they can have (BTW, I'm not quite sure how would the point buy for the 1/2 orc and human differ ?)...

But anyway, lets see:

A.) 1st lvl 1/2 Orc Barb, 18 STR (22 while raging), Power Attack; greatsword

B.) 1st lvl Human Barb, 16 STR (20 while raging), Power Attack, Cleave (human bonus feat); greatsword

While raging, A strikes at +7, +6 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+9 (2d6+11 for PA).

Same situation, B strikes at +6, +5 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+7 (2d6 +9 for PA).

So, yes, indeed, the 1/2 Orc averages 2 points per hit more damage. I personally don't consider this game-breaking, or even deserving of an extra -2 to a stat. Throw in the Human's bonus feat (Cleave), all of a sudden the Human is potentially averaging a LOT more damage per round.

If you try hard enough, you can point out a situation where any stat outshines others. I don't think Strength is inherently a better ability to get a bonus on than others. If anything in the above examples, I think there is more of a problem with how Power Attack and two-handed fighting rules work than any stat bonuses.

 

[Darklone]

See two pages before. The difference you just showed is Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation. Two feats, one of them a class special. Not gamebreaking? YMMV. Same for bards song in that General thread. A puny +1 makes a big difference.

Certainly the human has a big advantage with Cleave for level 1 and 2 or only for level 1 if the half-orc takes a fighter level... After that, the halforc is still in the lead.

But why don't we compare the halforc barbarian to an elf barbarian? We compared with human and dwarf, the two best races in 3rd edition. And still the halforc is better with some drawbacks. Compare him with gnomes and halflings or half-elves.

To me that's not an underpowered race.
- Without flavor: yes.
- Without many options: yes. Barbarian or barbarian multiclass all the way.
- Weak: no. Far from it. At least as long normal orcs or half-ogres are not allowed.

If you try hard enough, you can point out a situation where any stat outshines others. I don't think Strength is inherently a better ability to get a bonus on than others. If anything in the above examples, I think there is more of a problem with how Power Attack and two-handed fighting rules work than any stat bonuses.

We don't "try hard enough", these examples have been provided to counter the argument that a halforc would be weaker than a dwarf even in his niche: Melee combat.

We didn't try to show that strength is a better ability, we showed that it's the best ability in melee.

 

[Thurbane]

See two pages before. The difference you just showed is Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation. Two feats, one of them a class special. Not gamebreaking? YMMV. Same for bards song in that General thread. A puny +1 makes a big difference.

Certainly the human has a big advantage with Cleave for level 1 and 2 or only for level 1 if the half-orc takes a fighter level... After that, the halforc is still in the lead.

But why don't we compare the halforc barbarian to an elf barbarian? We compared with human and dwarf, the two best races in 3rd edition. And still the halforc is better with some drawbacks. Compare him with gnomes and halflings or half-elves.

To me that's not an underpowered race.
- Without flavor: yes.
- Without many options: yes. Barbarian or barbarian multiclass all the way.
- Weak: no. Far from it. At least as long normal orcs or half-ogres are not allowed.


We don't "try hard enough", these examples have been provided to counter the argument that a halforc would be weaker than a dwarf even in his niche: Melee combat.

We didn't try to show that strength is a better ability, we showed that it's the best ability in melee.

I don't neccessarily disagree with any of your points, but I just don't get why one race above and beyond all other core (PHB) races gets a +2 to one stat, and a -2 to two. Not to mention the amazing lack of "windrow dressing" abilities like Stonecunning, skill bonuses, weapon familiarity, save bonuses etc. that the other races get in one form or another. To me, it just doesn't add up - I can't help but feel by the RAW, 1/2 Orcs get shortchanged.

Still, that's what houserules are for...

 

[Darklone]

Well, our group doesn't use point buy or arrays, so I do often forget about the impact they can have (BTW, I'm not quite sure how would the point buy for the 1/2 orc and human differ ?)...

Easy. Take 25 or 28 Point buy (Normal by the PHB, that's why most groups with much higher PB think the halforc is screwed: The race has been balanced for PB 25). If a human fighter wants to have decent stats (e.g. Int 13 for C-Expert or Dex 15 for TWF to use all his feats), he'll most likely end up with a str of 16.

The halforc has two advantages:
- Most likely he doesn't need his mental stats too high since he has not that many feats nor will he take classes that need Int or Cha too high. So he will most likely put more points into Str, Dex and Con.
- That +2 to strength allows him to buy a strength 18 for 10 points. The human would have to pay 16 points. Strength 18 is huge because of the half strength bonus to THF or TWF fighters.

Str 16:
THF (greatsword): 2d6+4
TWF (longsword/shortsword): 1d8+3, 1d6+1

Str 18:
THF (greatsword): 2d6+6
TWF (longsword/shortsword): 1d8+4, 1d6+2

The addition to hit shouldn't be forgotten. If you calculate the average damage/round, you'll see it's a huge advantage.

So, let's assume the unlikely case that both take the same stat array we end up with the halforc with str 18 and the human with str 16 or even 14.

Same effect had been discussed with the half-ogre... even with his stat penalties he might end up at higher mental abilities at point buy systems because the humans/dwarves have to pay dearly for the high attributes.

 

[Darklone]

I don't neccessarily disagree with any of your points, but I just don't get why one race above and beyond all other core (PHB) races gets a +2 to one stat, and a -2 to two. Not to mention the amazing lack of "windrow dressing" abilities like Stonecunning, skill bonuses, weapon familiarity, save bonuses etc. that the other races get in one form or another. To me, it just doesn't add up - I can't help but feel by the RAW, 1/2 Orcs get shortchanged.

Still, that's what houserules are for...

See the first pages of the thread. I don't think halforcs are cool. I guess I will give them FrankDMs special abilities. What we try to explain here is: Why do they have these penalties?

The reason is simple: Because str rocks in melee much more than any other attribute in it's own special area and because the designers assumed that halforc players didn't care for their "three dump stats".

 

[KarinsDad]

A.) 1st lvl 1/2 Orc Barb, 18 STR (22 while raging), Power Attack; greatsword

B.) 1st lvl Human Barb, 16 STR (20 while raging), Power Attack, Cleave (human bonus feat); greatsword

While raging, A strikes at +7, +6 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+9 (2d6+11 for PA).

Same situation, B strikes at +6, +5 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+7 (2d6 +9 for PA).

So, yes, indeed, the 1/2 Orc averages 2 points per hit more damage. I personally don't consider this game-breaking, or even deserving of an extra -2 to a stat. Throw in the Human's bonus feat (Cleave), all of a sudden the Human is potentially averaging a LOT more damage per round.

In the dark? You consider Darkvision not equal to or even greater than a feat?

How about considering these two PCs when they have the exact same to hit (pulled straight from your example above):

A strikes at +6 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+11.
B strikes at +6 and hits for 2d6+7.

So, A does 4 points per hit more. Do you really think that this is not equal to the Cleave feat? Do you really think that this will not give A an extra action once in a while (i.e. A takes out his opponent, but B is still fighting his, so A gets to do something other than fighting his opponent on the next round)? Plus, A can swing at +7 if necessary. B cannot.

 

[billd91]

Going to lose???

Is the Half-Orc a Rogue as well? If so, his Spot rolls might be just fine.

And if the Half-Orc is a combatant type like a Fighter or Barbarian, even though the Elf Rogue does a lot of damage with his initial attack, after that, he's toast (low hit points against a high Strength character). He can rarely "re-hide" (assuming he does not have Hide in Plain Sight or other unusual abilities).

My point is that any situation can be contrived in which one character is going to win over the other without breaking much of a sweat. A half-orc vs an elf in the dark is one of them. You've selected a situation in which one character is highly disadvantaged compared to another and using it as one of your arguments that the half-orc isn't underpowered. Against any PC race except a dwarf, the half-orc has the advantage in the dark because he doesn't have to roll miss chances due to full concealment.