D&D 5E Orc or Half-Orc?

[SkidAce]

Hmm, no orcs... where would you get your generic fodder enemy?

And why specifically the half-ogre? Thats even least likely then a half-orc.

Goblins, Bugbears, Hobgoblins;

Gnolls, Flinds,

Kobolds,

Ogres (more intelligent than standard, and very vile...hence half-ogres.)

Bruteman tribes (neanderthals).

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

So, sure "tradition": but it's a recoverable an easily comprehensible history, and not some blind allegiance to past practice or fandom of a particular individual.

By saying it's "tradition" to have Half-Orcs in the PHV, I was implying that it's there for reasons that used to be relevant, even though most of those reasons are not necessarily relevant anymore.

The swine-headed orcs were simply too "monstrous" (for lack of a better term) to be a PC race...and were indisputably Evil by their very nature. Not exactly PC "hero" material.

That's a good point, and a very good reason to have Half-Orcs in the 1st edition, but it only makes it more obvious how much things have changed since then, in my opinion.

Really, I don't see any argument that holds water here. It all seems to boil down to, "I don't like them, so why should they be in the book?"

No, my argument is: "Orcs and Half-Orcs are, for all intents and purpose, identical, so why not play Orcs instead of this strange hybrid race?" Respectfully, it's your argument that seems to be "I like them, so they should be in the book."

No, seriously-- why the hell do they need to have human blood at all? What is this mentality that they need to be half-human to be heroes? No such requirement is placed on Halflings. Should we make Elves unplayable and say we will use Half-Elves instead?

This. I agree completely.

 

[BigVanVader]

You know what would be cool? Take the Half-Orc race, remove all the fluff, add a few Tiefling mechanics, paint them red and voila, you have a Hellboy race. Now make him an Urban Barbarian, cross him with Gunslinger, and you've got something swell.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I've sometimes thought of "half-orcs" as just the name that other races have given to another race of hominid -- Neanderthals, perhaps -- and because of their physiognomy they have been labelled as half-orc when in fact there is no orc in their blood at all (races, of course, do not normally interbreed.

Same stats; different flavour.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Personally, I’d have preferred them just call it an Orc. Half of them are bastards anyway…..

 

[am181d]

I think WotC did the right thing in including the standard Half-Orc in the PHB. There are a lot of people who like and play that race, so not including them because some folks on a message board have some different ideas would be a mistake.

That said, I've certainly handled Half-Orcs a number of different ways in my campaigns over the years, including replacing them with full Orcs, reskinning them as mostly-human with some small percentage of monster blood in their ancestry, and reimagining them as a separate standalone race. Whatever works best for a particular campaign world (and a given player's character concept).

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I've sometimes thought of "half-orcs" as just the name that other races have given to another race of hominid -- Neanderthals, perhaps -- and because of their physiognomy they have been labelled as half-orc when in fact there is no orc in their blood at all (races, of course, do not normally interbreed.

Same stats; different flavour.

Very good idea. I think that would be a much stronger concept that what we have now.

I think WotC did the right thing in including the standard Half-Orc in the PHB. There are a lot of people who like and play that race, so not including them because some folks on a message board have some different ideas would be a mistake.

Not including them because some folks on a message board have some different ideas would be a mistake; not including them because you have a better idea, on the other hand, would simply be common sense. In my opinion, playing an Orc offers the same possibilities as playing a Half-Orc and it is simply a stronger, cleared, more straightforward concept. Just dismissing that point of view because I'm just "a guy on a message board" seems to defeat the purpose of being on ENWorld in the first place.

 

[Gargoyle]

The people who created the game thought in very narrow and binary forms. They were not capable of handling the concepts of a wider narrative. It is all over the game.

They created a completely new hobby and have inspired countless movies, comics, novels, etc. I don't think you're being fair to the creators of version 1.0 of something as grand as D&D. The entire game, with all its warts and flaws, was an original idea that opened up worlds and a cultural phenomena. This is something no living member on this board can claim to have done. So please, have a little respect.

 

[am181d]

Not including them because some folks on a message board have some different ideas would be a mistake; not including them because you have a better idea, on the other hand, would simply be common sense. In my opinion, playing an Orc offers the same possibilities as playing a Half-Orc and it is simply a stronger, cleared, more straightforward concept. Just dismissing that point of view because I'm just "a guy on a message board" seems to defeat the purpose of being on ENWorld in the first place.

WotC has been very clear about their goals with this edition, which include better serving fans of previous editions and encouraging them to sample and convert. They deliberately chose to include all of the class/race combos from previous PHBs in order to appeal to the BROADEST possible audience.

If you want to see an edition intended to significantly innovate and carve out new space for the game, you need look no further than 4e. (Where separating out high elves as Eladrin is perhaps a similar innovation to the sort you're proposing.) Some folks liked that, some didn't -- but it happened because it was within the mission statement of the edition.

5e, by contrast, has a VERY different mission statement, and so we should not be at all surprised that nothing similar happened. WotC wants people who played half-orcs in previous editions to be excited to play half-orcs in the new edition. The percentage of people who will be stoked to play orcs instead of half-orcs *regardless of whether it's a good idea or not* is a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent.

And again, folks who actually like the idea of replacing half-orcs with rules identical orcs can totally do that without needing any support from WotC whatsoever.

 

[am181d]

The people who created the game thought in very narrow and binary forms. They were not capable of handling the concepts of a wider narrative. It is all over the game.

I think we can all agree that the game started fairly basic and became more complex over time. But picking apart the first role-playing game for not being innovative enough seems misguided to me.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

5e, by contrast, has a VERY different mission statement, and so we should not be at all surprised that nothing similar happened. WotC wants people who played half-orcs in previous editions to be excited to play half-orcs in the new edition. The percentage of people who will be stoked to play orcs instead of half-orcs *regardless of whether it's a good idea or not* is a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent.

It's not only true but a perfectly reasonable argument as well. On the other hand, it is based on the idea that D&D can only appeal to people who have played D&D in the past, and that catering to their nostalgia is more important than anything else. I don't subscribe to that point of view - in fact, I'd say that Orcs are a more iconic element of D&D than Half-Orcs.

 

[Minigiant]

One way I handled them and seen them handled before I'd make orcs a mongrel race created by magic. Human for size, ogre for strength, dwarf for fortitude and some loyalty, some hobgoblin for love of battle, an a dash of elf to make them less slow and stupid. Then half orcs and orog are orcs with too much human or ogre, design by design (my dm's setting) or accident (my setting).

The previous edition made orcs too savage, stupid, or instinctively evil to play in multiple ways. So they broke them away with halforcs and the new race was injected into tradition.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Now that I've read the MM, I think a slightly different take on Half-Orcs would make sense, if Half-Orcs really have to be in the PHB: all kinds of Orc hybrids as subraces: Orc-Humans, but also Orc-Dwarves, Orc-Halflings and Orc-Goblins.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Now that I've read the MM, I think a slightly different take on Half-Orcs would make sense, if Half-Orcs really have to be in the PHB: all kinds of Orc hybrids as subraces: Orc-Humans, but also Orc-Dwarves, Orc-Halflings and Orc-Goblins.

My best friend in high school wrote his own half(ling)-orc race, and played an assassin for our major campaign. It was awesome.

(Hi Rick.)

 

[Joe Liker]

This entire discussion hinges on the supposition that Orcs and Half-Orcs are these fixed, immutable quantities, and that when you use either term, everyone automatically knows precisely what you mean down to the tiniest nuance.

In reality, different DMs have very different ideas of what an Orc is. To some, they are irredeemably evil and therefore unsuitable as a PC race. To others, they are merely primitive humanoids with aggressive tendencies but every bit as much potential for heroics as any other sentient being. And to yet others, they are basically just uglier humans with a certain reputation.

The fact that Half-Orcs are a distinct race indicates that the designers of 5e do not see them as identical to Orcs. You may disagree with their design, but if so, you've wandered off into homebrew territory. You might as well ask the forums why unicorns exist or why hags don't dissolve in the rain.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The fact that Half-Orcs are a distinct race indicates that the designers of 5e do not see them as identical to Orcs. You may disagree with their design, but if so, you've wandered off into homebrew territory. You might as well ask the forums why unicorns exist or why hags don't dissolve in the rain.

That's a very odd thing to say. This is a forum: by definition, everything we talk about here is either our opinions or our ideas about D&D - yes, sometimes we may not completely see eye to eye with the designers, but what should we do? Just quote the PHB at each other? In my opinion, Orcs and Half-Orcs are so similar that it would be more interesting to have Orcs as a playable race, some people agree, others disagree.

 

[Joe Liker]

That's a very odd thing to say. This is a forum: by definition, everything we talk about here is either our opinions or our ideas about D&D ...

No, sometimes we talk about the facts of D&D, and I was pointing out that your opinion runs directly counter to the facts.

By all means, carry on with the discussion if it entertains you.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

No, sometimes we talk about the facts of D&D, and I was pointing out that your opinion runs directly counter to the facts.

I've expressed an opinion about the facts. It's actually pretty common. Everyone can relax.

 

[TrippyHippy]

WotC has been very clear about their goals with this edition, which include better serving fans of previous editions and encouraging them to sample and convert. They deliberately chose to include all of the class/race combos from previous PHBs in order to appeal to the BROADEST possible audience.

If you want to see an edition intended to significantly innovate and carve out new space for the game, you need look no further than 4e. (Where separating out high elves as Eladrin is perhaps a similar innovation to the sort you're proposing.) Some folks liked that, some didn't -- but it happened because it was within the mission statement of the edition.

5e, by contrast, has a VERY different mission statement, and so we should not be at all surprised that nothing similar happened. WotC wants people who played half-orcs in previous editions to be excited to play half-orcs in the new edition. The percentage of people who will be stoked to play orcs instead of half-orcs *regardless of whether it's a good idea or not* is a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent.

And again, folks who actually like the idea of replacing half-orcs with rules identical orcs can totally do that without needing any support from WotC whatsoever.

With respect, I think you are conflating a whole raft of other non related issues in with one very specific issue. The people who disliked 4E, for the main, did not cite the Orc/Half-Orc debate as a major problem…

The point about Half-Orcs/Orcs is that, in a practical sense, they are the same thing. In a culture that explicitly rapes and pillages all the time, the chances are that most of them come from some bastardised background to one degree or another. Why create an artificial division for flatly no reason whatsoever? If people baulk at the idea of playing Orcs as a straight Race, then why single these out and not Teiflings, Drow and Dragonborn? (All of which are listed as optional, or ‘uncommon’ anyway).

 

[steeldragons]

Now that I've read the MM, I think a slightly different take on Half-Orcs would make sense, if Half-Orcs really have to be in the PHB: all kinds of Orc hybrids as subraces: Orc-Humans, but also Orc-Dwarves, Orc-Halflings and Orc-Goblins.

I remember a table somewhere (1e MM?) that had a percentage breakdown of the different "orc + other" combo's. And i did up a more simplified list myself back in the 80s. Haven't had cause to use it in...oh, forever...but this convo is definitely leading me to think it needs to be dusted off.

Now, obviously, Orc-Dwarf & Orc-Halfling wouldn't be on the list. Thems good eatin'!

But stat's for, sy: Orc/Human, Orc/Ogre (which we already have as the Orog), Orc/Goblin would be a cool amount of sub-racey detail I think. Orc/Hobgoblins, Orc/Gnolls, et al., are either redundant or a step too far, methinks...Orc/Troll warrants some consideration, though.