D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

[Crimson Longinus]

The thing I didn't fully understand but am starting to wrap my head around is that for some people it's not just that certain races should be able to start with certain ability scores, but that other races...or at least some other races...should be limited to lower scores.

So it's not that Orcs (for example) need to be able to start with Strength 16, or 17, or 18, but that whatever that threshold is, Halflings and Gnomes are capped at some lower value.

Is that right?

Yes, I definitely think that. Because certainly the scores only make sense in comparison to each other? Orcs being able to begin with a higher strength score than the Gnomes simulates the Orcs being bigger and stronger than the Gnomes.

 

[Haldrik]

The thing I didn't fully understand but am starting to wrap my head around is that for some people it's not just that certain races should be able to start with certain ability scores, but that other races...or at least some other races...should be limited to lower scores.

So it's not that Orcs (for example) need to be able to start with Strength 16, or 17, or 18, but that whatever that threshold is, Halflings and Gnomes are capped at some lower value.

Is that right?

With regard to Strength, I feel that class and species determine the FLAVOR for the Strength bonus.

Player characters and statistical outliers aside:

A strong Orc is often bigger and more muscular.

A strong Monk has more mental discipline of Ki.

A strong Dwarf is stone-like, denser and more unyielding.

A strong Gnome is magically strong, as a spititual force.

A strong Halfling is weird and requires unusual circumstances to explain it.



Strength is mostly about flavor.

On the other hand, relative Size matters more, to estimate carrying capacity, and is relevant for adjudicating Grappling. When a Tiny creature "grapples" a Medium creature, it means the Tiny creature is "riding" the Medium creature, like a Medium creature might hold on to ride a Huge dinosaur. Size matters.

 

[Remathilis]

With regard to Strength, I feel that class and species determine the FLAVOR for the Strength bonus.

Player characters and statistical outliers aside:

A strong Orc is often bigger and more muscular.

A strong Monk has more mental discipline of Ki.

A strong Dwarf is stone-like, denser and more unyielding.

A strong Gnome is magically strong, as a spititual force.

A strong Halfling is weird and requires unusual circumstances to explain it.

Strength is mostly about flavor.

This is bordering on that bugbear that lurked in the heart of every warlord-healing thread that existed. The one who allows you to make longsword attacks with Charisma and turns crossbows into slings, longbows, firearms and magic bolts. The be-all-end-all of Fourth Edition. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named:

DISASSOCIATED MECHANICS

Thunderclap Dramatic music

 

[Haldrik]

This is bordering on that bugbear that lurked in the heart of every warlord-healing thread that existed. The one who allows you to make longsword attacks with Charisma and turns crossbows into slings, longbows, firearms and magic bolts. The be-all-end-all of Fourth Edition. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named:

DISASSOCIATED MECHANICS

Thunderclap Dramatic music

My gaming style:

flavor = rules as written.

Flavor is even more important than mechanics. My DM style is, "Yes-No-Maybe". If a player tries to do something, I first adjudicate the effort narratively. Either the player action sounds plausible and succeeds, or sounds implausible and fails. Only if it sounds like the action genuinely could go either way would mechanics matter.

To be fair, I treat combat as if a mechanical minigame. But even then, narrative descriptions can override mechanics, especially when performing skill stunts.

I prioritize flavor over mechanics. So a strong Monk using Ki versus an Orc using brawn, does have narrative consequences.



4e made flavor inconsequential. Essentially, the 4e core strove to resolve all efforts with precise (and elegant) mechanics. The flavor was essentially an empty text box. There was usually a nice default flavor, but it was designed to fill the textbox in oneself. The flavor rarely interfered with the mechanical gaming balance.



Some of my difficulties with 5e are because a baked-in flavor feels incongruent or unappealing. 4e fans sometimes dont understand my objection. Theyre like: chill, its only flavor, just refluff it yourself. What they might not understand is, for me, narrative adjudication is the whole point of D&D as a storytelling game. So my ability to enjoy D&D depends on the core rules themselves having flavor that I either like or can live with.

I require the gaming system to have balanced elegant mechanics ... that cohere well with an easily customizable flavor.

For core rules, a light touch for flavor, ideally with two or three appealing options, is fine as long as the flavor isnt baked-in everywhere.

Unlike core rules, the purpose of a setting guide is to bake-in flavor everywhere, so everything gels together. I like some settings more than others.

While players and DMs enjoy freedom to customize and personalize flavor, the chosen flavor has narrative consequences.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is bordering on that bugbear that lurked in the heart of every warlord-healing thread that existed. The one who allows you to make longsword attacks with Charisma and turns crossbows into slings, longbows, firearms and magic bolts. The be-all-end-all of Fourth Edition. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named:

DISASSOCIATED MECHANICS

Thunderclap Dramatic music

Oh god, I’d thought that phrase had died in the edition war!

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Cynically, I don't think we can differentiate them.

Any time the rulebook says, "Orcs are XXXXX," someone is going to complain, with some level of truth, "That is an attack against ethnic group YYYYY!" It doesn't matter what the XXXXX is.

 

[Remathilis]

Oh god, I’d thought that phrase had died in the edition war!

Like any good monster, it has risen FROM THE GRAVE!!!!

 

[Maxperson]

Alternatively, race is just a "skin" to change the appearance of your PC but doesn't change how you role-play them.

10 different versions of humans would bore me. It would be a great way to get me to quit the game.

 

[Remathilis]

10 different versions of humans would bore me. It would be a great way to get me to quit the game.

But Max, you could play anything you want: an elf, an orc, a centaur, a giant, a vampire, a troll, a pixie, a dragon, an Eldritch horror unbound by Euclidean geometry, a sentient glass of orange juice, anything you want!

 

[Haldrik]

Pick three feats, call it a species.

Official species can suggest three or more feats, like abiliy boost, darkvision, misty step, skillset, whatever. A player can pick none, one, or some of these feats, or different feats to customize their own concept of the species. Happily, while leveling and gaining new feats, they can spend these feats to continue developing into a highly powerful species, such as a dragon.