D&D (2024) The Half Orc. Are they still needed?

[Reynard]

Theros is an official D&D campaign setting, and it doesn't include any core race besides humans, so Wizards is willing to do settings with restricted options. We also have a few brand-new settings on the way, so who knows how they'll handle this.

That's a MtG setting right? Is it human only, or just no elves, dwarves etc?

 

[JEB]

That's a MtG setting right? Is it human only, or just no elves, dwarves etc?

Yep, MTG setting, but still an official D&D product.

Theros features humans and a handful of non-core races: centaurs, leonin, minotaurs, satyrs, and tritons. Of the lot, tritons were the only D&D-originating race to appear, although MTG centaurs and minotaurs had previously appeared in Ravnica. (Centaurs, minotaurs, and satyrs have since appeared in their D&D incarnations in MOTM, but leonin remain unique to Theros.)

 

[Oofta]

I don't have a lot to add (or much time), other than to say I have no issues with half-orcs as a concept, although the wording in the PHB is ****. I dislike the whole concept of every race just being just a rubber mask you put on a pile of stats, I think it takes away from the game. On the other hand I don't see it changing, and yes, I've take advantage of floating ASIs because whether I like it or not it's here to stay.

However, I do always find it odd that people insist that because we have half-orcs that orcs and humans must be related species. It's a world of magic, one where we have hybrids of humans and horses, humans and bulls. Not to mention the monstrous mixes of completely unrelated species. I don't assume genetics works the same way in a world where someone can twiddle their fingers and cause a ball of fire to appear.

 

[Faolyn]

I never argued where the pressure originated from exactly. Just that when WotC released official rules, there's pressure on a lot of DMs to allow it in their games. Who cares if it's pressure applied by WoTC or players? The point is that it's there and it's not always easy to ignore. Just saying, "it's optional" doesn't really address the problem.

There's always going to be pressure from players, though. Some new homebrew they found, some race or archetype or even class from a 3pp, an insistence that a spell or ability works a different way than what the DM says. So how is pressure from a new book any different or more noteworthy?

 

[James Gasik]

I don't have a lot to add (or much time), other than to say I have no issues with half-orcs as a concept, although the wording in the PHB is ****. I dislike the whole concept of every race just being just a rubber mask you put on a pile of stats, I think it takes away from the game. On the other hand I don't see it changing, and yes, I've take advantage of floating ASIs because whether I like it or not it's here to stay.

However, I do always find it odd that people insist that because we have half-orcs that orcs and humans must be related species. It's a world of magic, one where we have hybrids of humans and horses, humans and bulls. Not to mention the monstrous mixes of completely unrelated species. I don't assume genetics works the same way in a world where someone can twiddle their fingers and cause a ball of fire to appear.

That's a fair point, but we have a lot of examples of races that don't seem able to interbreed. Like you can have half-human half-just about anything, but no elf-dwarves or gnome-halflings?

Usually, when a new half-species appears there's usually a sense of "wait, what, that's a thing?". Like Half-Kender.

Then we had 3.x with dragons being able to have kids with nearly any living creature...

So yeah, while maybe genetics isn't a thing in D&D, there's something that makes some species able to have kids and prevents others from doing so that at least simulates genetics.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the Tasha's rules were actually optional, it would be a matter of taste. But WotC clearly never intended them to be.

I’d say they clearly tested some rules to see if the overall response was positive enough to bake those rules into the game down the road, and feedback was mostly positive.

The insistence on implying they’re liars at every turn is just strange.

 

[Oofta]

That's a fair point, but we have a lot of examples of races that don't seem able to interbreed. Like you can have half-human half-just about anything, but no elf-dwarves or gnome-halflings?

Usually, when a new half-species appears there's usually a sense of "wait, what, that's a thing?". Like Half-Kender.

Then we had 3.x with dragons being able to have kids with nearly any living creature...

So yeah, while maybe genetics isn't a thing in D&D, there's something that makes some species able to have kids and prevents others from doing so that at least simulates genetics.

Special blessings from their gods, make it happen mostly. Elves are incredibly malleable, it's why we have a couple dozen different races. For orcs, it's a special blessing to spread Gruumsh's power base.

Other races either aren't as adaptable or their gods don't see a reason to give them the capability.

At least in core lore, different campaign worlds will have different rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’d say they clearly tested some rules to see if the overall response was positive enough to bake those rules into the game down the road, and feedback was mostly positive.

The insistence on implying they’re liars at every turn is just strange.

I think they wanted to use the new rules as standard from the get-go, and intended them as such, but marked them as optional in case fan feedback was bad. That's not lying.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think they wanted to use the new rules as standard from the get-go, and intended them as such, but marked them as optional in case fan feedback was bad. That's not lying.

That’s a line so fine I’m not sure a soft breeze wouldn’t carry it away.

They said they were optional, and they still are. The fact they are now designing new things similarly has no impact on the truth of that.

 

[MGibster]

There's always going to be pressure from players, though. Some new homebrew they found, some race or archetype or even class from a 3pp, an insistence that a spell or ability works a different way than what the DM says. So how is pressure from a new book any different or more noteworthy?

Okay. So first there's no pressure. Now there is pressure but it isn't different or noteworthy? It's okay if your opinion changes, mine changes on occasion, but you're kind of shifting the goalposts on me here. It's noteworthy because Tasha's represents the most radical change in how PC races are handled in the last 30 years. It's noteworthy because it's going to be the default assumption for how race is handled if it isn't already.