And every time you have, I stated that I like the idea of those races having exactly that. But you need a separate setting. I like the idea of having a gnome in a specific setting being a star gazer, communing with nature, and gaining a +2 wisdom. Love it. But make them distinct from the other subraces. If you want to debate that they got the forest gnome wrong with what attributes BEST represent it, I'd listen. In fact, I think you are already right.
Why do I need a new setting to represent the lore from the current setting? That makes no sense.
Your argument lacks empathy for the people saying they are losing something. And again, in the PHB, there is a line, I concede, that hints at wisdom. 100% agree. But when you read the text as a whole, it is clear that the BEST attribute to represent them is strength. Yet, you can't even concede that. The designers gave them a +2 because they know the language used BEST represents them being physical and strong and hardy. I have no qualms if you read the Eberron orc and chose to argue that they got the ASI's wrong. Again, I would agree with you.
You really are stuck on this "BEST" attribute thing, aren't you? You do remember they get two, right? So, even the designers were looking at the BEST TWO attributes.
And, with this focus on the setting, you are really setting yourself back up for 2e elves. We will have twenty different variants of every race, to cover every combination of stats we can justify... or, we could just take the ASIs, make them float, and then focus on actual abilities if we decide that there is a significant need for them.
I mean, I'm glad you are agreeing with me, but you seem to want to just make more versions of them, instead of letting them be more flexible.
Again take the reading in the PHB as a whole. Most who read it will not get what you are getting. They will read it and understand orcs are strong, passionate, physical, and hardy. They will also get that they are poor, rough, and get by on their sheer determination. Then they might also get that some are wise. So if it were a test, asking for the BEST attribute, wisdom would not be most people's first choice. Can you debate it is. Sure. But the amount of language and evidence against you is greater. But you won't concede that it is. Do me a favor, hand the PHB to someone who doesn't play D&D and ask them what the half-orc is like. See if they wise.
So, really you don't think that anything outside of the PHB counts?
Because most of my evidence was coming from Volo's, which focused on the orcs. And, it is also strange to keep referring to the Half-Orc for the Orc lore. Orcs aren't in the PHB at all. Half-Orcs are, and they mention the Monster Manual orcs, but even those don't tell us as much about Orcs as we find in Volo's.
Heck, just a single example. Volo's highlights how important the Gods are to the Orcs. Everything in Orc culture revolves around them.
How many Orc gods are mention in the PHB and MM? One. Gruumsh.
How many Orc Gods exist? At least six. Gruumsh, Luthic (his wife), Ilneval, Bahgtru, Yurtrus and Shargraas
Or, since that won't convince you that you should look beyond the PHB, what ethnicities of humans exist? According to the PHB, the only human ethnicities are Calishites, Chondathans, Damarans, Illuskans, Mulans, Rashemis, Shous, Tethyrians, and Turamis. They are the Forgotten Realms ethnicities, and the only ones in the PHB. Are they the default human ethnicities for all of DnD? Or should we look beyond what the PHB lays out.
It is a good line. It makes me think of a few of them being tempered. Using wisdom to do it? I could argue against that, and say it's constitution. But I won't. I would just say it implies that not a lot of half-orcs can do that. So be it nature or nurture, many can't do it. Yet, the language for strength seems to encompass most half-orcs.
It isn't a good line. It is the same idea that was used in the Jim Crow era to suppress African Americans.
