# Savage Species (3.0?) Half-Ogre Race: Balanced?



## Tyrol (Apr 23, 2004)

Looking for thoughts and opinions on the balance of the Half-Ogre race presented in the Savage Species book (which came out before 3.5), in a 3.5 campaign.  I saw a 3.5 Half-ogre *template* over at Crystal Keep, but havn't seen a Half-ogre *race* anywhere else.

From Savage Species:


> Half-Ogre
> Ability Score Adjustments: +6 Str, -2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Cha
> Large size: -1 Atk, -1 AC, and 10' reach.
> Base Speed: 30 ft
> ...




Also of note is that in the campaign you can buy off your Level Adjustment in a similar way as Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Apr 23, 2004)

No, I think it's too powerful.  +5 or +6 damage at a better attack bonus is a lot, and 10' reach is very powerful.  In the short term your hit points hurt, but they catch up with the Con bonus.

Comparing the combat stats of a half-ogre Ftr2 with a human Ftr3 (since human is one of the better races for fighters):

Human:
+2 feats, +2 AC, +5 hp or so

Half-Ogre:
+1 attack, +5 damage, reach

The +5 damage is more than two restricted feats give (WS & GWS, for example), and +1 attack is a strong benefit.  Reach is incredible powerful...

As the half-ogre gains levels, the analysis swings in his favor -- half-ogres look near-balanced at level 2, but they're killer at level 10.

I wouldn't use them except at +2, personally.  Even then they're a strong choice for combat, arguably outclassing humans -- but their limitations would make it a fair choice them, I think.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 23, 2004)

No, they're not balanced.  Over on the WOTC boards, the author of the half-ogre has suggested giving them two racial HD to make them more reasonable.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 23, 2004)

What Spaula said. Either give them some racial hit dice or increase the LA to at least +2, possibly even +3.


----------



## DarkMaster (Apr 23, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> No, I think it's too powerful.  +5 or +6 damage at a better attack bonus is a lot, and 10' reach is very powerful.  In the short term your hit points hurt, but they catch up with the Con bonus.
> 
> Comparing the combat stats of a half-ogre Ftr2 with a human Ftr3 (since human is one of the better races for fighters):
> 
> ...



Also -2 skills point per level, very difficult to roleplay in urban setting (monstrous appearance, lack of skill (social) and bad charisma), -2 to hit with ranged weapon, need more space to fight effectively. but they also have higher damage using Large weapon(depending on the setting it might also be harder to get large magical weapons and armor) I guess your +5 damage take that in consideration. 

I would say it depends on the campaign, pure hack and slash probably a bit stronger at lower level. I personnaly think that at higher level they get equivalent, especially if you cannot buy your level adjustment.

But in a high role playing game this type of character become almost useless (as most fighter, but even worse). Don't know, I personally don't allow non standard race to my player, every time I did it (in previous editions) they ended up giving up their character because they all felt they were utility fighting machine. Every time they had to interact socially they either had to wait outside the city, or have to deal with all kind of complications (people scared, or they were hunted right away, people don't want to interact with them ect...)


----------



## ~Johnny~ (Apr 23, 2004)

Yeah, the ability to use Large weapons is practically worth a +1 LA on its own. That *and* a +6 ability bonus is +2 territory for sure.


----------



## Pax (Apr 23, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> No, they're not balanced.  Over on the WOTC boards, the author of the half-ogre has suggested giving them two racial HD to make them more reasonable.




  Wow.  I know that's the EXACT idea I had *way back when*, when the book first came out.  Looks like either I guessed it right, or the idea made the rounds and the author liked it.

  ^_^ Whee!


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Apr 23, 2004)

One of the players in my campaign is playing a half-ogre and they are way too powerful for a +1 LA. I'd recommend a +3 LA: +1 for being large (the boosted damage dice is invaluable), +1 for attribute bonuses, and finally +1 for other benefits (primarily natural armor).


----------



## Scion (Apr 23, 2004)

there have been a lot of threads about this. They are pretty strong at +1, but they are incredibly limited, you can only really be a couple of character archtypes. However, bumping them up to a flat +2 makes them worthless. If the racial hd is going to be used then probably getting rid of the +1 and giving them 2 racial hd instead is one of the best options.

So: +1, might be too strong, depends on the campaign. In some it is, in others it isnt.

+2 = the suck.

Working out a happy middle ground is incredibly difficult.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 23, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> +2 = the suck.



How do you figure?

Being limited to a few archetypes is not a reason for an LA deduction. If you don't want to play a tank-style warrior, you won't be a half-ogre.

Compared to a human warrior-type of one level higher the 1/2 ogre wins every time.

Even at +2 they are just equal, and depending on the actual level the humn r the 1/2 ogre will come out marginally ahead.


----------



## DarkMaster (Apr 23, 2004)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> How do you figure?
> 
> Being limited to a few archetypes is not a reason for an LA deduction. If you don't want to play a tank-style warrior, you won't be a half-ogre.
> 
> ...



I don't think that basing your analysis on direct fight is enough. The human with more feats and skills might endup more useful for a party than a dumb combat utility


----------



## Pax (Apr 23, 2004)

Nyarlathotep, +3 is LUDICROUSLY overpriced.  *Full OGRES* only get a +2 (and 4 giant Hit Dice).

And James, if it werent for TFW having already assigned them a +2 before he left, I'd've done the very "two racial hit dice" fix for half-ogres in Exodus.  IMO, it's a much better fix than increasing their LA to +2.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 23, 2004)

I like the 2 racial hit dice also. I could go with either one and be happy. +1 is definitely too low though.

Darkmaster: Depending on level, at +1LA the human may only end up with one feat more. Given that both characters are focused warriors, its doubtful that the huma's feat is going to be something that isn't combat related. The increased damage, more AoOs, and ability to take feats like Large and In Charge mean that Large size has to be at least +1 La all by itself.


----------



## DarkMaster (Apr 23, 2004)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I like the 2 racial hit dice also. I could go with either one and be happy. +1 is definitely too low though.
> 
> Darkmaster: Depending on level, at +1LA the human may only end up with one feat more. Given that both characters are focused warriors, its doubtful that the huma's feat is going to be something that isn't combat related. The increased damage, more AoOs, and ability to take feats like Large and In Charge mean that Large size has to be at least +1 La all by itself.




Possibly, but I found it sad to base the LA solely on combat ability. A 4 th level rogue or bard is not evaluated on it's combat ability but also on what it can bring to a group. The 1/2 ogre usually don't bring anything more than being a powerfull combat machine, it even usually have a hard time initimidating the enemy with no skills and charisma. 
Maybe it comes from the fact that I have a hard time with monster as player character, at the begining the players are all exited by their capability but 95% they will quickly feel very limited.

scouting rogue: Ok there is that huge minautor in that room
Wizard: I will pull out the 1/2 ogre from the magical hole for this fight. 
rogue: A wizard what a magical item you created, now we have the advantage of this guy when we need it but not the disadventage of carrying him around.

In the last campaign I allowed a monstre PC that is exactly how he felt after a few session.


----------



## slingbld (Apr 23, 2004)

I have a player that realy wanted to play a half-ogre. I let him but made it a ECL+2.
It has been remarkably well ballanced. Then again, I made sure to create adventures where mr half-ogre would realy shine through and others where being that big was realy a pain in the players rump (small fighting quarters, running into a group of kobold barbarians that all raged & encircled him at one point, all getting flanking & thier small size bonuses, etc....). I think you just have to be more creative a GM with a weird or unusual race. 

Bottom line is unusual race, unusual campaign. If you don't want the extra workload, don't allow the race! 

Slingbld~


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 23, 2004)

Not to mention that the half-ogre is therefore disgustingly more powerful than the half-giant in XPH, making it look all the more sickly by comparison.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 23, 2004)

DarkMaster said:
			
		

> Possibly, but I found it sad to base the LA solely on combat ability.



A fighter brings little to the table except for being a combat machine. A half-ogre just accentuates this even more by brnging even more to the table in the fighting department.

When looking at LA you have to determine it based on the class's best fit. If a race gives +6 to charisma you have to look at it from a sorcerer's and bard's viewpoint, not a fighter's.

After that, you've got a best case scenario LA worked out. From there its much easier to have your DM let you go downward if you are making a less efficient member of the race (such as a Half-ogre wizard or sorcerer).


----------



## Scion (Apr 23, 2004)

Dont compare anything useing the fighter, as written the fighter is currently only a marginal step above an npc class anyway. But that is a topic for another thread  I prefer comparing useing the barbarian anyway, it is easier.

With that comparison, and at +2, the halfogre is rediculously behind at early levels. At later levels it is even more paramount because all of the halfogres bonuses, and more, can be gained by a simple, low level, spell. Trading in 2 levels for that is just.. well.. bad.

Even without the spell though the other comparisons are striking. They are behind by 2hd and 2x con (giving equal starting cons this evens out at 'very' high levels, until then the nonhalfogre is ahead, sometimes a very large amount), they are behind by 2 BAB (this effects many feats and multiple attacks, having 2 attacks at a slightly lower damage is preferable over one attack at slightly more a good portion of the time, useing the proper feats the damage issue becomes less paramount as well), 2 levels of class abilities (for the barb this is things like uncanny dodge, new rages, DR, and so forth.. some levels this is such an extreme difference as to be laughable), 2 levels of skill points (that, and the halfogre has an int penalty, way behind in skill points, at higher levels the nonhalfogre could have double the skill points!), behind by a feat most of the time, behind by half of a stat point, behind by 1 point in good saves all of the time and a point in bad saves most of the time.

At +1 they are pretty strong. Too strong? depends on the campaign. At +2 they are just laughably weak in comparison. So given the choice between +2 or 2 racial hd it is pretty obvious, as that at least allows them to stay even in a couple of the areas. Personally I like to make all halfogres also feral  It actually winds up making the character pretty equal to what a +2 should be, as some of their bonuses simply cancel.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 23, 2004)

What low level spell gives size Large, +6 strength, +2 con, and +4 AC?

You can disagree with the fighter comparison if you want to, but fighter is the benchmark warrior class. And even against a barbarian, he really only loses an iterative attack. Everything else is compensated by stats, AC, and size.

I don't see any level break where +2 for a half ogre barbarian is unbalanced, much less "laughable."

Note that in comparisons I ignore any level earlier than (LA x 2) + 1 because playing any LA race before that point is giong to be underpowered unless the race has massive con boosts to make up for lost hit points.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 23, 2004)

Also, half-ogres cannot be feral. That template only applies to humanoids and monstrous humanoids, not giants.


----------



## Scion (Apr 23, 2004)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> What low level spell gives size Large, +6 strength, +2 con, and +4 AC?




The enlarge person spell comes pretty close. Alter self nearly finishes the job. Polymorph self does it all. Other spells also do parts as well, but that just overdoes it and makes not taking the halfogre look even better.



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> You can disagree with the fighter comparison if you want to, but fighter is the benchmark warrior class. And even against a barbarian, he really only loses an iterative attack. Everything else is compensated by stats, AC, and size.




Why is the fighter the benchmark warrior class? why not the barbarian? I think that the barb fits the bill much better. Since the fighter is pretty horrible at just about everything, and not so great in the fighting department as to make the other apsects irrelevant.....

Everything else is not compensated though, it is a huge deficit, as the incredibly large list above shows quite clearly. Check out the list again, perhaps you could run your own comparison?

I have already run them several times in other threads about this topic. Some people feel that a few points of extra damage will overcome any detriment, and I just dont agree. Especially when the detriment is so large.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 23, 2004)

Polymorph puts all LA races to shame, and Alter Self isn't exactly available to most barbarians. Enlarge only gives +2 strength. It gives no con, no natural armor, and only lasts a very short while.

Fine, we can ignore the fighter if you want to. What levels is the half-ogre "laughably" weak compared to the barbarian with LA +2?

Higher Natural Armor makes up for loss of hit points and the 1 point difference in DR. Saves are worse, but saves for a barbarian suck anyway, and you'll be needing the party's help to keep from becoming every enemy spellcaster's boytoy whether you're human or half-ogre.

At +1 LA you go from being behind a feat most of the time to being behind a feat 1/3 of the time. Your class ability loss is negligible.

Yes, skill points are lost, but anyone wanting to play a half-ogre (or any -2 int race) obviously doesn't care about skill points, so they become almost a nonissue for comparison.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Apr 24, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Nyarlathotep, +3 is LUDICROUSLY overpriced.  *Full OGRES* only get a +2 (and 4 giant Hit Dice).




Full Ogres would be minimum Effective Character Level 6 (4 racial Hit Dice + 2 Level Adjustment + any class levels). Ogre Barbarian 1 would be a level 7 character.

To me +3 doesn't seem too bad at all. A Half-ogre Barbarian 1 would be a level 4 character, just slightly better than half of the Ogre Barb1 .

The size advantage is definately worth +1 (Reach, increased base weapon damage - sure there is a -1 AC and attack penalty but it's well worth it).

The unbalanced attribute bonus is worth another +1, especially since Str and Con are boosted. You'd never take a half-ogre to be a sorcerer or wizard so this plays to the benefit of fighting classes - or even a cleric.

The last +1 comes from all the other racial benefits. I'm of the opinion that the +4 natural armor should be worth +1 by itself, as most (if not all) natural armor buffs are now enhancement bonuses. Darkvision is valuable to everyone. Giant blood can be both a bonus and a liability.



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Also, half-ogres cannot be feral. That template only applies to humanoids and monstrous humanoids, not giants.




I made half-ogres "humanoids (giant)" in my game because of a similar issue. If you make the half-ogre a giant type they also gain resistances to a great many spells (those that apply to humanoids only - and there are a great many of those, which nulifies the disadvantage of a half-ogre fighting type... Will saves).

IMC the half-ogre is way too overpowered at just +1 LA. +2 would be the equivalent to a Githzerai and there are some parallels there. Both have large bonuses to their best attributes - STR/CON for half-ogre, WIS/DEX for githzerai - big boosts to the "prime requisites" of their favored classes. Now add the benefits or reach, the improved weapon damage, and a +4 natural armor bonus. I think +3 is just about right, but YMMV .

Edited: To hide my tendancy to post before proof-reading to make sure I have completed all my sentances.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 24, 2004)

Githzerai gets a bunch of spell-like abilities IIRC which makes up the difference.  I'd say the half-ogre is balanced at +2 if you're not adding any racial dice.


----------



## Darklone (Apr 24, 2004)

I'm with Pax rule for 2 racial giant HD and LA +1. 

The half-ogres are still sweeping the dance floor in no time compared to half-orc or human barbarians.


----------



## Tyrol (Apr 24, 2004)

Thanks for all the input, everyone   

I personally think making the LA +2, OR adding 2 racial hitdice would both be effective ways to balance it.  Unfortunately, I am not the DM of the campaign where it is a concern. 

Here's the story:  My D&D group is preparing to start a new campaign.  One of the PCs has been planning on being a Frenzied Berserker and now wants to be a half-ogre.   The DM of this particular campaign has been deciding whether to allow the Half-Ogre as presented in Savages Species or not (and it had seemed like he was going to allow it).  As the only other melee class in the group, a Half-Ogre Frenzied Berserker (at only LA +1) scares the crap out of me!     (Because I am most likely to be the closest to him in proximity when a battle ends).   So that's why I made this post, to help the DM figure out if the Half-Ogre was balanced or not before I go SPLAT.


----------



## Darklone (Apr 25, 2004)

Always carry an invisibility potion with you.

Ask the DM to turn the PC into a half-ogre/half-dragon.


----------



## Pax (Apr 25, 2004)

The real problem here is a PC Frenzied Berserker.  That is NOT a good idea.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 27, 2004)

I'm playing a half-ogre in a bastardized 3.0/3.5 game. I'm just on par with everyone else at a +2 LA. 

I agree that it's definitely not a +1, but a half-ogre is definitely not a +3. Just look at how much cooler the half-dragon is.


----------



## glass (Apr 27, 2004)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> I made half-ogres "humanoids (giant)" in my game because of a similar issue...




Plus it avoids them being listed as Large Giant, when they are in fact pretty much the smallest kind of giant!  


glass.


----------



## Darklone (Apr 27, 2004)

Half-dragon is really cool if you patch it on a half-ogre. 

"I can flyyyyyyyyyyy!"


----------



## MacMathan (Apr 28, 2004)

IMC we have a had a Half-Ogre running at +2 for 9 months and it has worked out very well. We ended up giving them a 40' move to bring them more in line with Giant types. Other than that the character is being used as written in Savage Species to good and balanced effect.


----------

