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.