Dwarves and other races

[Endur]

Personally, I'd take the Orc or the Wood Elf over any of the PHB races.

Barbarians are all about strength and Orc is the best race for barbarian (assuming you aren't allowing size L races). Wood Elf is far and away the best race for a Ranger or archery fighter build.

 

[Xiryc]

Why do people constantly hand-wave the penalties a orc and half-orc get, and only concentrate on the STR bonus?

Because most players pick a race based on their class, and when you think of playing an Orc, it involves hitting things.

AFAIK, according to WotC a +2 to STR is adequately balanced by a -2 to INT and a -2 to CHA.
Further, a +4 to STR is apparently balanced by a -2 to INT, WIS, and CHA as well as a -1 to attacks (or, basically penalizing the orc by 1 feat).

Actually, to reduce D&D to a simplistic comparison which only takes STR into account is actually quite the indictment of your style of play there, Basilisk.
It suggests that everything that INT, WIS, CHA, and the penalizing of 1 feat for Daylight Adaptation (or -1 to attacks, your choice) is no concern in your style of play.

Ah yes, because most D&D games involve constant outdoor battles in daylight. And when most people think of orcs, they think strong, dumb and rude.

Not to mention the roleplaying drawbacks of orcs.

Doesn't playing an Orc give some unique roleplaying opportunities?

Wasn't this a thread about Dwarves?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Other people have already made a lot of the points I'm going to make but I think I can tie this into the dwarf discussion.

You see, the secret of racial balance in D&D is that races can't be balanced against each other in the abstract. They have to be balanced in terms of their suitedness for a particular class. For instance, a hypothetical small race with -2 str, wis, cha, +2 con, +2 int, and +1 to evocation spell DCs and nothing else would fare quite poorly in the kind of stat comparison that is being done here. Yet such a race would be the pre-eminent choice for wizard characters everywhere? Why? Because the benefits are the benefits a wizard wants and the drawbacks are penalties that, by and large the wizard doesn't care about. There are people who play half-orc wizards and sorcerors, but they're deliberately playing against type.

That's why half-elves are generally thought to be weaker than orcs or half-orcs despite the mechanical analysis showing that they get significantly more benefits than half-orcs. The half-orc and orcs benefits make them the best damage dealers around. The half-elf's abilities don't make them good at anything. (The best they can do is take elf-specific prestige classes without having the elf-drawbacks--if you want to be a bladesinger with good con, an arcane archer with bard or sorceror levels instead of wizard, or to have the heir of Isildur template, you pretty much have to be a half-elf. It turns out that the elf-blood ability is the only thing that ever makes half-elves a solid mechanical choice).

Similarly, it's why orcs are a strong race. +4 strength is hard to beat for bashing heads in, making orcs excellent choices for barbarian, fighter, and melee ranger characters. The penalties to mental attributes are less important since the character probably didn't plan to have strong mental stats anyway. The light sensitivity is a disadvantage, but as others mentioned, most of the time it won't injure the PC. And the challenge of role-playing an orc? Well, that's part of the attraction to a lot of players. Against the wood elf (a very strong race in its own right), the orc's higher strength and lack of a con penalty make him the clear choice for a straightforward headbasher. (Elven weapon proficiencies are completely irrelevant to a warrior class and the elven ability to find secret doors is almost completely irrelevant to a fighter or barbarian (their search generally isn't high enough to find the doors anyway)). For an archer, the wood elf is a clear favorite but not for a front-line type.

Bringing the topic back to where it began, the suitability of races for particular classes is why the 3.5 dwarves are particularly eggregious. Nearly every benefit they gain is tailored to be useful to a fighter and nearly every drawback they suffer is irrelevant to a fighter type. (Even the seemingly innocuous Stability enables a dwarven trip fighter to ignore the possibility of a countertrip in nearly every situation he has a reasonable shot at tripping his foe in the first place--and with trip being such an effective tactic in 3.5, that's not small potatoes). It's not the number of benefits that dwarves get that make them too good. It's how well they are all tailored to the fighter and barbarian classes. (With sides of Ranger and paladin if appropriate).

Why do people constantly hand-wave the penalties a orc and half-orc get, and only concentrate on the STR bonus?

AFAIK, according to WotC a +2 to STR is adequately balanced by a -2 to INT and a -2 to CHA.
Further, a +4 to STR is apparently balanced by a -2 to INT, WIS, and CHA as well as a -1 to attacks (or, basically penalizing the orc by 1 feat).

Actually, to reduce D&D to a simplistic comparison which only takes STR into account is actually quite the indictment of your style of play there, Basilisk.
It suggests that everything that INT, WIS, CHA, and the penalizing of 1 feat for Daylight Adaptation (or -1 to attacks, your choice) is no concern in your style of play.
Not to mention the roleplaying drawbacks of orcs.
Now, when you compare an orc or half-orc to a Wood Elf, it is certainly a slap in the face to orckind.
+2 STR, +2 DEX, -2 CON, -2 INT

This nets the Wood Elf a +2 DEX, -2 CON, and +2 CHA compared to the half-orc.
It nets him a -2 STR, +2 DEX, -2 CON, +2 WIS, +2 CHA and a +1 to attacks (or 1 feat) compared to the orc.

Throw in:
—Immunity to sleep spells and effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.
—Low-light vision.
—Weapon Proficiency: Elves are automatically proficient with the longsword, rapier, longbow, composite longbow, shortbow, and composite shortbow.
— +2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. An elf who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check to notice it as if she were actively looking for it.

and I think that most people can see how shafted the orc-kind ARE.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wasn't this a thread about Dwarves?

Well, as all discussion, the topic... broadens?

But back to Dwarfes and Elder Basilisk post:
A problem with the Dwarf is: He is perfectly tailored for Fighter, but he suffers no real drawbacks in this class (and a -2 to Int can be a disadvantage if the fighter wants, say use Improved Trip or Expertise ). He also has little drawbacks when choosing another class, except Bard, Paladin and Sorceror, and to a lesser extend Cleric or Rogue (but Darkvision and Stonecunning is nothing to sneeze at if you`re a rogue).
A +2 to Con benefits every race, and is, on "average", as powerful as a +2 to Strength (which is very useful for all fighters and has no use for spellcasters)

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Thels]

The problem is:
Elves and Halflings get a good Dex, which is usefull for Rogues and Archers, and then some.
Dwarves and Gnomes get a good Con, which is usefull for practically any class, and then some.
Halforcs and Orcs get a good Str, which is usefull for Fighters and Barbarians, but that's about all they're getting.

+2 Str balances out to -2 Int, -2 Cha? Then why does a Wood Elf get +2 Str, -2 Int without the Cha hit?

Why are Halforcs and Orcs crappy at intimidate?

What I'm saying is, the Halforc and Orc aren't overly weak, but they oughta get some nice abilities like all the other races do.

Or how about giving Halfelves and Halforcs part of the human abilities? Give halfelves an extra feat at level 1 (instead of the +2 Diplomacy/Gather Info) and halforcs an extra skill/level to set off that int penalty.

 

[Thanee]

It says "Dwarfs and other races"

reaper, isn't the Wood Elf a bit different in 3.5 now? I think they toned them down somewhat.

The Half-Orc is surely not as good as a Dwarf, noone said that, but the Half-Orc is a decent race for some classes and not nearly as bad as the Half-Elf, who can basically only be used for a Diplomacy-focused Bard.

At least the Half-Orc does have some nice benefits (altho some tough penalties as well). Mind you, it's still the second worst race after the Half-Elf.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thels]

They got tuned up. 3.0 Wood Elves had +2 Str +2 Dex -2 Con -2 Int -2 Cha. 3.5 Wood Elves no longer take the Cha hit.

That makes it very good for Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Clerics, Monks, Rogues, Bards, Psi Warriors, Egoists and Nomads, still okay for Druids, Sorcerors, Seers and Telepaths, and crappy for Wizards, Savants and Shapers.

I see no reason at all to take a Halforcs when Woodelves are allowed and Orcs only if you like going excessive on the Str.

 

[Thanee]

In my MM they are +2 Str -2 Int (still better than Half-Orc, tho).

EDIT: Ahhh... in addition to High Elf traits --- my bad!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thels]

That's in addition to High Elf bonuses, being +2 Dex, -2 Con.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, just noticed that!

Funny, that they made them even stronger, they were on the powerful side of the races in 3.0 already.

Bye
Thanee