# The Half Orc. Are they still needed?



## Professor Murder

_Preface: The larger issue of "race" in DnD and how it is changing and will be presented differently in 5+ed is it's own topic. The issue of "mixed race" and how it is presented, such as the half-elf, half-orc, and those of more extended lineage, such as Aasimar and Tieflings is it's own topic. That said, I fully expect this to eventually devolve into just arguments about those issues along a long enough timeline._

Premise: Given the "softening" of Orcs in the mainline documents and likely continued efforts to remove the idea that any given race of playable peoples in DnD are inherently evil_, _does it make sense to have Half Orcs as a playable option in the next iteration of the PHB? Should instead players just get rules for playing Orcs outright in the PHB?

Thoughts?


----------



## Scribe

Professor Murder said:


> _Preface: The larger issue of "race" in DnD and how it is changing and will be presented differently in 5+ed is it's own topic. The issue of "mixed race" and how it is presented, such as the half-elf, half-orc, and those of more extended lineage, such as Aasimar and Tieflings is it's own topic. That said, I fully expect this to eventually devolve into just arguments about those issues along a long enough timeline._
> 
> Premise: Given the "softening" of Orcs in the mainline documents and likely continued efforts to remove the idea that any given race of playable peoples in DnD are inherently evil_, _does it make sense to have Half Orcs as a playable option in the next iteration of the PHB? Should instead players just get rules for playing Orcs outright in the PHB?
> 
> Thoughts?



In short, no.

I see no point in having it as a distinct entity. Just call it Orc, and assign those floating ASI as you see fit.

Same as Half Elf really.

Those races used to have meaning, at this point, I just don't see how they will continue to have relevance in whatever D&D is turning into.


----------



## CleverNickName

"Needed" is a strong word; they're needed as much as any other race or ancestry option.  I mean, I wouldn't artificially create tons of lore for them in my campaign for no other reason than they're in the PHB.  But if one of my players is really excited about playing a half-orc, I'd cook up a niche for them, and lots of lore to help them fit.


----------



## Professor Murder

CleverNickName said:


> "Needed" is a strong word; they're needed as much as any other race or ancestry option.  I mean, I wouldn't artificially create tons of lore for them in my campaign for no other reason than they're in the PHB.  But if one of my players is really excited about playing a half-orc, I'd cook up a niche for them, and lots of lore to help them fit.



Well, needed in that they can fill a particular archetype niche, that of a big bruiser, sorta rough around the edges.


----------



## Mecheon

I do reckon Orc'll become the main 'Bruiser' arcetype going forward. We're in a post-Warcraft place of fantasy where the idea of good orcs is well and truly seeded for most people

Half orcs I suspect will become a subrace or the like, so not gone entirely, just an option


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Professor Murder said:


> Well, needed in that they can fill a particular archetype niche, that of a big bruiser, sorta rough around the edges.



Then, no. Orcs can easily do that. If you want to be able to play a "Half-Orc" the flavor text of the race in the 5.5e PHB could just say "you can be a half-human, half-orc, but you are mechanically identical to a regular Orc". 

And there are plenty of races that fill that niche in D&D. Centaurs, Minotaurs, Goliaths, and a few others.


----------



## Charlaquin

Not really. Until recently they’ve mostly just been playable orcs. Now that orcs aren’t always evil, you don’t really need them for that purpose. They _could_ be fleshed out into their own identity, distinct from being “mostly orcs, but enough not-orcs that your DM will let you play one,” but I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re just replaced with full orcs in ‘24.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mecheon said:


> I do reckon Orc'll become the main 'Bruiser' arcetype going forward. We're in a post-Warcraft place of fantasy where the idea of good orcs is well and truly seeded for most people
> 
> Half orcs I suspect will become a subrace or the like, so not gone entirely, just an option



I don’t think subraces are going to continue to be a thing.


----------



## James Gasik

Mm, I can't imagine D&D without 37 flavors of Elf.


----------



## Charlaquin

James Gasik said:


> Mm, I can't imagine D&D without 37 flavors of Elf.



Well I’m sure those will still exist, I just don’t think they’ll be categorized as subraces of a single parent race. They’ll just go back to all being “full” races again.


----------



## Scribe

Charlaquin said:


> Well I’m sure those will still exist, I just don’t think they’ll be categorized as subraces of a single parent race. They’ll just go back to all being “full” races again.



Isn't that what the multiverse book did? Like fizbans?

Pretty sure. Huge waste of space, but it is what it is.


----------



## MGibster

The half-orc used to represent the archetypical outsider who may be treated poorly by others for their lineage.  This is something that many of WotC's target audience finds offensive.  And as others have pointed out, a lot of people are used to orcs being good guys at least part of the time.  So WotC might as well ditch the half-orc and just make orcs a playable race.


----------



## bedir than

AcererakTriple6 said:


> If you want to be able to play a "Half-Orc" the flavor text of the race in the 5.5e PHB could just say "you can be a half-human, half-orc, but you are mechanically identical to a regular Orc".



My friends that are clearly both part of, and ignored by, both 'races' of their parents absolutely love the half-orc. It helps them feel like themselves, with a foot in both worlds. Telling such a person that they're really just an orc doesn't enable their story - it ends it.


----------



## Charlaquin

MGibster said:


> The half-orc used to represent the archetypical outsider who may be treated poorly by others for their lineage.



That’s Tieflings now.


MGibster said:


> This is something that many of WotC's target audience finds offensive.



Not _inherently_ so - again, that’s Tieflings’ shtick now, and they’re incredibly popular. The key is, the basis for the prejudice has to be something purely fantastical. It gets a lot more uncomfortable when the prejudice your character faces closely resembles prejudice real people face (especially if you or someone else you play with personally face such prejudice.)


MGibster said:


> And as others have pointed out, a lot of people are used to orcs being good guys at least part of the time.  So WotC might as well ditch the half-orc and just make orcs a playable race.



Or carve out a new niche for half-orcs. But I agree just getting rid of them seems more likely.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I'd rather see the Horc become something on its own with the orc taking one of the big guy slots. Maybe they're more of an all around athlete, being good at both Athletics and Acrobatics due to having the dense muscle of the orc and the wiry sinew of the human. Maybe they'll be super-robust like ligers; bigger and tougher than both orc and human. There's plenty of things that can be done with them.

Also, just because they've lost their purpose doesn't mean D&D will ever let go of them. Even if they don't come up with something, we can be sure they'll clutch desperately to their corpus to dear life until it rots in their grasp.


----------



## JEB

MOTM's orc explicitly includes half-orc traits, which I think makes it pretty plain where this is going in 2024. (Though I'd suspected that would be the case for a while before that.) I do hope they still include half-orc lore in 2024, as @AcererakTriple6 suggests, to help support legacy players who still want that specific background. There were players in my last group whose characters were built with that in mind.

I wouldn't be surprised if half-elves stick around, though.


----------



## Raduin711

bedir than said:


> My friends that are clearly both part of, and ignored by, both 'races' of their parents absolutely love the half-orc. It helps them feel like themselves, with a foot in both worlds. Telling such a person that they're really just an orc doesn't enable their story - it ends it.



I think this is an important point. And I think what it speaks to is a need for D&D races to become more interchangeable, allowing for halfling/elves and dwarf/tieflings and such without saying "just pick one and use it"


----------



## Kurotowa

Charlaquin said:


> Not _inherently_ so - again, that’s Tieflings’ shtick now, and they’re incredibly popular. The key is, the basis for the prejudice has to be something purely fantastical. It gets a lot more uncomfortable when the prejudice your character faces closely resembles prejudice real people face (especially if you or someone else you play with personally face such prejudice.)



In-game prejudice is also less troublesome when it isn't supported by game mechanics. Tieflings often get accused of being tainted by the infernal planes, but they don't have a "Kicks Puppies For Fun" racial trait so it's easy for players to decide for themselves if they want to embrace their heritage and kick the puppy or defy their fate and pet the puppy. Half-orcs, meanwhile, have often leaned all the way in on racial traits and ability score modifiers that confirm all their negative stereotypes as sinister half-breeds or crude rage monsters.

I've never seen someone argue in favor of happy shiny D&D worlds that are completely free of discord and prejudice, outside of people railing against strawmen. What I have seen is people saying, "This group in the setting is being painted with the same slanders that I've experienced in real life, and maybe the best story ideas are stolen from the real world, but when the game mechanics then try to _justify_ those stereotypes it really hurts." It's like, the new hobgoblin stats don't mean they can't still be the conquering iron legions of Maglubiyet, it just means that role isn't hard-coded in their fantasy DNA via racial stats.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> Not _inherently_ so - again, that’s Tieflings’ shtick now, and they’re incredibly popular. The key is, the basis for the prejudice has to be something purely fantastical. It gets a lot more uncomfortable when the prejudice your character faces closely resembles prejudice real people face (especially if you or someone else you play with personally face such prejudice.)



I still maintain that it takes a special kind of stupid to develop an open prejudice about a people whose superpower is to set people who harm them on fire.


----------



## Andvari

Orcs explicitly were not always evil in 3rd edition, and I would have missed half-orcs there as well. Don’t know about 4th.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> Maybe they'll be super-robust like ligers; bigger and tougher than both orc and human.



That would be my preference.


Vaalingrade said:


> Also, just because they've lost their purpose doesn't mean D&D will ever let go of them. Even if they don't come up with something, we can be sure they'll clutch desperately to their corpus to dear life until it rots in their grasp.



That’s a _very_ good point.


----------



## CleverNickName

"Can they be evil?" is a weird litmus test for whether or not a creature can be a playable race.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

It depends on what you mean by "needed."

This is one of the (three-ish) incredibly frustrating standards I frequently see brought up in D&D discussions. Because, if you mean that in its usual sense, *absolutely nothing is ever needed in D&D. Ever.* There is no such thing as "necessity." Period. We don't _need_ specific classes, we don't _need_ specific rules structures, we don't _need_ specific races, we don't _need_ particular equipment or spells or feats or themes or _anything_.

But if you mean a specific, niche definition of "need," something like "does this have enough utility that it can't be ignored" or "is this sufficiently fundamental to D&D that getting rid of it is untenable," then it's unlikely that half-orcs are "needed," but there are _lots_ of things present or added over time that aren't "needed." Orcs themselves don't seem to be any more or less "needed" than half-orcs. This means the answer to the question isn't very informative; we would need to ask something further, like "what does half-orc provide?" or the like, to really draw any meaningful conclusions.

That's the key problem with this question. It very, very easily becomes a motte-and-bailey fallacy, even without the author _intending_ such, due to the fluid sense of the word "needed."

Now, engaging with the core premise of the thread assuming that "are half-orcs still needed" should _actually_ be read as "are half-orcs still _useful_," my answer is unequivocally yes. I still see good things being done with them, and I still see them having a place in various fantastical settings. I don't have literal or figurative "skin in the game" when it comes to racial intermixing, being from a historically privileged ethnic background, so it's hard for me to have clear insight on that front. But I think it's worthwhile to have "child of two worlds" options, particularly given the people in my life who _have_ been of biracial or polyracial backgrounds and who have personally felt a deep desire to explore that identity and what it means for them.

On the flipside, I absolutely, 100% agree that the disgusting and inappropriate backstory information for half-orcs from early editions has died the death it deserves, and will not dignify it with further discussion than this sentence. It should fade into obscurity as nothing more than an annoying quirk of history.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

CleverNickName said:


> "Can they be evil?" is a weird litmus test for whether or not a creature can be a playable race.



For my part, it's more "can they be moral?" Note that that does not mean "can they be _good_," because _good_ is only one subset of moral behavior.

If a type of creature is genuinely incapable of having moral behavior of any kind, then I don't really think they're appropriate for players to play. Such a creature is necessarily incapable of a critically important form of reasoning. If a particular creature is _incapable_ of moral behavior, then that creature is a nonsapient animal, construct, or object, and not appropriate for player use.

Not that I think that it is impossible to have sapient animals, constructs, or objects! I totally think that's possible, and can have cool fairytale resonances. (Consider the transformed characters in Disney's _Beauty and the Beast_.) But it is the sapience that matters here; without sapience, there's a problem.


----------



## CleverNickName

EzekielRaiden said:


> For my part, it's more "can they be moral?" Note that that does not mean "can they be _good_," because _good_ is only one subset of moral behavior.



I don't have a problem with the word 'evil,' or even the word 'moral.'  It's the word 'can' that bothers me.

All races _can be _evil, immoral, depraved, whatever.  That's why it's a weird test for playability.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

CleverNickName said:


> I don't have a problem with the word 'evil,' or even the word 'moral.'  It's the word 'can' that bothers me.
> 
> All races _can be _evil, immoral, depraved, whatever.  That's why it's a weird test for playability.



Dogs can't be evil, immoral, or depraved. They are incapable of moral behavior. That's why they wouldn't be a playable option in my game.

That's what people are asking about. Can golems (not warforged, legit actual _golems_) be moral? In most settings, the answer is "no," because they're literally just magical automata. Hence, in most settings, they aren't a playable-race option. But if you're strongly inspired by Discworld, maybe your golems can have chems that allow them to exhibit moral behavior; such golems _would_ be playable.


----------



## S'mon

No they are not needed. But I still like having them.

Half elves _are_ needed IMO as long as D&D keeps Darkvision; many players take Half Elf just to play a human with dark vision, or just a good looking human with less body hair.  By contrast playing an Elf means you're part of a non-human lineage with its own culture.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

S'mon said:


> No they are not needed. But I still like having them.
> 
> Half elves _are_ needed IMO as long as D&D keeps Darkvision; many players take Half Elf just to play a human with dark vision, or just a good looking human with less body hair.  By contrast playing an Elf means you're part of a non-human lineage with its own culture.



The idea of a lineage, as opposed to a race, is you do not have to be "genetically pure" to use those stats.

Thus, half elves are unnecessary. You can still play characters with both elven and human ancestry, but you stat them with whatever lineage best describes what they can do. What you look like has been removed, that is now up to the player.


----------



## James Gasik

Curiously, one of 4th editions big points was that any creature can be of any alignment.  Gold dragons could be evil, and Red dragons could be good.  This extended to player characters as well.  Though many Drow were evil, your Drow didn't have to be.  No one seemed to mind this at all.

So I was very surprised when, playing in AL, an official document came out with regards to some of the Volo's races, saying what alignments you could be, and which organizations you could belong to.  My Orc Cleric, for example, had to join the Zhentarim.

Then when this whole kerfluffle happened with Wizards doing damage control to "fix" this perception that races are always evil, and people got really upset about it, I was like "weren't we past all this anyways?".

It's all dependent on your campaign anyways.  Sure, maybe in official content, Hobgoblins are a Fey race that has weaponized courtesy and friendship...but how many people are really going to incorporate that into their home games, where Hobgoblins have been Lawful Evil militants for who knows how long?

Heck, Wizards is going to run into some problems with this with their official settings, I'm sure.  Like, why is there a monster-only nation in Khorvaire, and why did the Hobgoblins serving under Lord Toede join with the armies of Takhisis, if everybody gets along and there's no prejudice?

Sure makes the brooding existence of a certain dark elf Ranger seem a bit silly now, doesn't it?


----------



## delericho

Personally, I would prefer that orcs not be added as a playable race in the PHB. If they are added, however, half-orcs should have the same status as half-elves - either both should go or both should stay.

That said, my preferred approach for mixed heritages these days is probably to add an "orc heritage" (or elf, dwarf, whatever) feat to the game. Indeed, make it a feat chain for characters who want to lean in to that heritage. That way, characters can discover a heritage they didn't know about at first, they can mix-and-match to their heart's content - and if everyone gets a feat at 1st level (another thing I'd prefer they didn't, but it looks like we're going that way), half-orcs and half-elves remain viable at creation.


----------



## delericho

EzekielRaiden said:


> For my part, it's more "can they be moral?" Note that that does not mean "can they be _good_," because _good_ is only one subset of moral behavior.



Yep, I quite like that. Or, perhaps better, "can they _choose?"_


----------



## Mind of tempest

honestly, I hate the half-something races only because it makes it all about your parents and not about who the character honestly is, it is even a stereotype for half-elves.

the real question is if we move the full orc in and moved the half out would people really care as a lot just want a big bruiser guy, there will be controversy but I doubt it would matter all that much or we could see them become a sidebar opening pages up for something new.


----------



## Minigiant

I see Orc evolving to a natural Brute race. Powerful build, Adrenaline Rush, and Relentless Endurance gives of the Unstoppable Rusher idea. Orcs are tenacious and tough.

I see the Half Orc as the channeling that inner power into one point. The Half Orc channel the Orcs power into one spot instead of the whole point. You aren't just bigger, faster, and stronger.

Personally I love the Duality of Human + Something Else in the Half Orc and Half Elf. The idea of being the bridge beteen 2 worlds while not being fully accepted by either.

Plus a Half Orc gets to take both Human and Orc feats and use both Humans and Orc only items.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I think orc should be an option, and even though I was a very big fan of Half Elves in ADnD I think it probably is time to mak a generic half x/ half y template.
Probably:
Chose

you get one (or two) skill profciciencies if either parent race has one, or one (or two) of your choice.
you get darkvision 30ft if either parent race has it or 60ft if both have it.
if either of your parents has a heritage, you inherit it.
you can chose any one other trait from your parent races that is not darkvision or giving a free proficiency.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

The influence of the MMO "World of Warcraft" is too strong to be ignored, althought always the archetype of barbarian orc may be too typecasted. Why not an orc shaman? 

And half-orc is easier to explain the reason because a orcblood is in a group with no-orcs. 

I am awaiting half-ogres as one of the new PC races.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Professor Murder said:


> _Preface: The larger issue of "race" in DnD and how it is changing and will be presented differently in 5+ed is it's own topic. The issue of "mixed race" and how it is presented, such as the half-elf, half-orc, and those of more extended lineage, such as Aasimar and Tieflings is it's own topic. That said, I fully expect this to eventually devolve into just arguments about those issues along a long enough timeline._
> 
> Premise: Given the "softening" of Orcs in the mainline documents and likely continued efforts to remove the idea that any given race of playable peoples in DnD are inherently evil_, _does it make sense to have Half Orcs as a playable option in the next iteration of the PHB? Should instead players just get rules for playing Orcs outright in the PHB?
> 
> Thoughts?



I don’t think half-orcs are needed as the ‘‘‘player character version of the wild enemy brutes’’’ anymore, we’ve progressed past that and playing an orc as a player race is totally something that should now be possible as a standard core race, but I don’t think that half-orcs need disappear, they IMO should become a subrace option of either orcs or humans (and whatever you choose if you’re doing it with half-orcs do it with half-elves too)

I think it would be good if humans just had a ‘half-X’ subrace template where it provides rules for making a half-race build with any race (I forget if it’s specifically DnD lore or from something else that humans are cross fertile with most other races)


----------



## Paul Farquhar

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I am awaiting half-ogres as one of the new PC races.



It wouldn't be a new thing. I played a half-ogre in the 1980s, from a magazine, I can't remember which.


----------



## delericho

Paul Farquhar said:


> It wouldn't be a new thing. I played a half-ogre in the 1980s, from a magazine, I can't remember which.



"Complete Book of Humanoids" (2nd Ed) had half-ogres.

Hmm. Maybe the game should drop orcs entirely (too much baggage), and have Goliaths as the big bruiser?


----------



## DND_Reborn

If half-orcs and half-elves are gone in the future, so should aasimars, tieflings, and probably others: just bring in playable celestials and fiends.   

That being said, if future editions _don't_ include them, I'll either add them back in (like everything else) or just not play it.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

delericho said:


> "Complete Book of Humanoids" (2nd Ed) had half-ogres.



This was earlier.


delericho said:


> Hmm. Maybe the game should drop orcs entirely (too much baggage), and have Goliaths as the big bruiser?



Already a popular alternative amongst Critical Role fans. Fir Bolg are on the up too. Particularly amongst "gentle giant" fans.

Orcs seem to attract the "angry guy" trope rather than "big guy" trope.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

DND_Reborn said:


> If half-orcs and half-elves are gone in the future, so should aasimars, tieflings, and probably others: just bring in playable celestials and fiends.
> 
> That being said, if future editions _don't_ include them, I'll either add them back in (like everything else) or just not play it.



A half elf just becomes a human (or whatever) with an elven lineage, just as an aasimar is a human (or whatever) with celestial lineage. They are not being deleted, they are being simplified.


----------



## Minigiant

LuisCarlos17f said:


> The influence of the MMO "World of Warcraft" is too strong to be ignored, althought always the archetype of barbarian orc may be too typecasted. Why not an orc shaman?
> 
> And half-orc is easier to explain the reason because a orcblood is in a group with no-orcs.
> 
> I am awaiting half-ogres as one of the new PC races.



That's kinda how 4e did it.

The Half Races were the multiclassers and twists on the non-human side's trope

Half Elf got an at-will of another class. This allowed for the fighter with a wizard spell or cleric prayer or a wizard would could whack you got with a staff.

Half Orc added +W or +1d8 to any attack or spell. This boosted warrior + priest/mage types

Half Dwarves just ended penalties and pushed the idea of alternative dwarf trope like a gladiator fighter, a slave smith, or a matyr priest.


----------



## Catolias

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think orc should be an option, and even though I was a very big fan of Half Elves in ADnD I think it probably is time to mak a generic half x/ half y template.
> Probably:
> Chose
> 
> you get one (or two) skill profciciencies if either parent race has one, or one (or two) of your choice.
> you get darkvision 30ft if either parent race has it or 60ft if both have it.
> if either of your parents has a heritage, you inherit it.
> you can chose any one other trait from your parent races that is not darkvision or giving a free proficiency.



I totally agree. Pathfinder 2e includes this in its options now so you can half-dwarves, half-gnomes, etc.

I think the problem for me was the explanation for a half-orc coming from sexual violence. I don’t see why that should be the default reason for blending.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Paul Farquhar said:


> They are not being deleted, they are being simplified.



Sounds more like the opposite to me, but whatever.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Catolias said:


> I don’t see why that should be the default reason for blending.



Because orcs were "monsters" then and the designers felt such unions could only happen through violence, as where dwarves and gnomes and other races could produce half-what-ever for other reasons.


----------



## Ogre Mage

Perhaps if their 5.5 racial abilities give them a certain niche which is distinct from the orc, as opposed to just being watered-down orcs.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I think @Paul Farquhar has the right of it. 

If you are of mixed heritage, pick the one that represent you most. You then decide what your character looks like. After all, even planar ancestry such a Tieflings and Genasi are just (mostly) humans in which their special lineage is stronger than in other. 

I can even see some Feats similar to the multiclass-lite Feats to how a more distant ancestry, like Fey or Shadow or Dragon Touched.

(I'd also make sorcerer either a lineage or a feat chain to tap into magical lineage rather than a full class, but that's me, who would also leave warlock as a background + feat)


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

Professor Murder said:


> _Preface: The larger issue of "race" in DnD and how it is changing and will be presented differently in 5+ed is it's own topic. The issue of "mixed race" and how it is presented, such as the half-elf, half-orc, and those of more extended lineage, such as Aasimar and Tieflings is it's own topic. That said, I fully expect this to eventually devolve into just arguments about those issues along a long enough timeline._
> 
> Premise: Given the "softening" of Orcs in the mainline documents and likely continued efforts to remove the idea that any given race of playable peoples in DnD are inherently evil_, _does it make sense to have Half Orcs as a playable option in the next iteration of the PHB? Should instead players just get rules for playing Orcs outright in the PHB?
> 
> Thoughts?



Are you talking about whether players can play a character who is a half-orc, or whether there should be separate rules for half-orcs as a specific race? Those are two different questions.

Between Tasha's customising your origin option, or just deciding which parent you take after and using those rules, separate stats for half-orcs as a lineage are not required to play a half-orc (or half-elf etc) character.
However half-orcs and half-elves have a definite existence in most settings, and as conceptual archetypes for players to represent their characters.


----------



## Scott Christian

bedir than said:


> My friends that are clearly both part of, and ignored by, both 'races' of their parents absolutely love the half-orc. It helps them feel like themselves, with a foot in both worlds. Telling such a person that they're really just an orc doesn't enable their story - it ends it.



I can get behind that as a player.

But, from a larger perspective, the feeling of having one foot in two worlds is a trope as old as time, and there are other ways of doing it, as opposed to being "mixed race." I think the new ideal will be a person of a race (say an orc) that was raised by elves or dwarves or humans or whatever. They will strongly associate with their culture but feel a longing for the ancestry.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> A half elf just becomes a human (or whatever) with an elven lineage, just as an aasimar is a human (or whatever) with celestial lineage. They are not being deleted, they are being simplified.



Isn't the point that a half elf or half orc is only half human.

A half elf isn't  human with elven lineage but a combination of how human and elven body and mind interact.

For example a half elf will be refined like an elf but their human side gives them the curiosity and ambition to think outside the box, sty on track, and not take 100 years to learn something. This is why half elves are known for versatility. They learn like elves but don't take forever like a human.

The question are:

*What benefits and flaws of the orc mind does the human mind cancel out?
What benefits and flaws of the orc body does the human body cancel out?*


----------



## jgsugden

If I were designing the next edition of D&D, I'd change character creation as follows:
1.) (EDITING)


----------



## DND_Reborn

What would be best IMO would be the following:

Each race as two strong and two weak features.
Mixed-race chooses one strong and one weak from each of its parents' race, or for more fun, make it random.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

Paul Farquhar said:


> It wouldn't be a new thing. I played a half-ogre in the 1980s, from a magazine, I can't remember which.



I didn't play one, but I created one and introduced it as a DM PC for a bit. I was a subscriber to Dragon magazine at the time, which is where I found it. Is this what you're thinking of?


----------



## Synthil

DND_Reborn said:


> Mixed-race chooses one strong and one weak from each of its parents' race, or for more fun, make it random.



I like that. That would also allow for mixed children of already mixed parents. Just choose from the features of your parents.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Synthil said:


> I like that. That would also allow for mixed children of already mixed parents. Just choose from the features of your parents.



Yep. For example, an orc and dwarf have a kid. He choose one strong and weak trait from each parent.

Later, he has a child with a dwarf. That child can still chose the strong orc trait from the mixed father, but in all other respects be a dwarf.

This could continue for generations of children with later dwarves, always carrying the strong orc trait....


----------



## Crimson Longinus

No, they're really not needed, they're not conceptually significantly dissimilar from normal orcs. 

However, D&D race design is characterised by having mindboggling amount of separate races which overlap with each other thematically. Recently this has also included whittling away the mechanical tools of differentiation, as well as making the lore extremely vague and noncommittal. So in this paradigm half-orcs might as well exist. It doesn't really make much sense, but the whole race design paradigm doesn't make much sense anyway.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Ulorian said:


> I didn't play one, but I created one and introduced it as a DM PC for a bit. I was a subscriber to Dragon magazine at the time, which is where I found it. Is this what you're thinking of?



Yeah, that was the one.


----------



## beancounter

WoTC will do what it will do. I personally have no problem with half orcs, half elves, orcs, Drow, or any D&D species for that matter.

I suspect that within a generation, D&D species will be nothing more than a "skin" that you can gumball random abilities to.


----------



## Steampunkette

So... Evil is irrelevant.

Antagonistic is the point. It's also why Tieflings are so much more popular than Aasimar.

See... you don't have to be evil to be the bad guy. Klingons aren't evil. Most of them are jerks. But we get Worf on the Enterprise D, anyhow, to show that the antagonists that the Federation has been fighting throughout the Original Series and movies aren't actually Evil. Sort of the same thing with Seven of Nine and Borg, even though they're much closer to capital E evil than the Klingons we've gotten a lot of exploration of their identity and stuff through Picard to show us that they could even be a force for good.

Orcs don't need to be CE as a race or culture to be antagonists to various kingdoms. And the birth of their children can thus still have various stigmas that replicate a specific upbringing that a player might wish to embody in their roleplay. One of being the social outcast because they're considered "Bad" or "Ugly" or "Stupid" or whatever other epithet is applied to this half-caste character.

Could someone play an Orc, instead? Sure. No problem. No reason not to. Unless the societies in the game space wouldn't tolerate having a full blood orc walking through town carrying a giant axe for... some reason. Possibly relating to warfare or other ongoing struggles...

But a half orc? Well. They're easier to stomach for most people in such a setting. Easier. But not Easy.


----------



## bedir than

Scott Christian said:


> I can get behind that as a player.
> 
> But, from a larger perspective, the feeling of having one foot in two worlds is a trope as old as time, and there are other ways of doing it, as opposed to being "mixed race." I think the new ideal will be a person of a race (say an orc) that was raised by elves or dwarves or humans or whatever. They will strongly associate with their culture but feel a longing for the ancestry.



Being adopted isn't the same as being mixed race. Both stories and realities are valid


----------



## Eltab

Playable orcs, instead of the earlier "orc = monster and always-evil", took over the half-orc's niche but that has not been fully digested yet. 

I do not see a crunch reason to keep both orc and half-orc character races, and the fluff reasons are being edited away steadily.


----------



## Laurefindel

Steampunkette said:


> So... Evil is irrelevant.
> 
> Antagonistic is the point. It's also why Tieflings are so much more popular than Aasimar.
> 
> See... you don't have to be evil to be the bad guy. Klingons aren't evil. Most of them are jerks. But we get Worf on the Enterprise D, anyhow, to show that the antagonists that the Federation has been fighting throughout the Original Series and movies aren't actually Evil. Sort of the same thing with Seven of Nine and Borg, even though they're much closer to capital E evil than the Klingons we've gotten a lot of exploration of their identity and stuff through Picard to show us that they could even be a force for good.
> 
> Orcs don't need to be CE as a race or culture to be antagonists to various kingdoms. And the birth of their children can thus still have various stigmas that replicate a specific upbringing that a player might wish to embody in their roleplay. One of being the social outcast because they're considered "Bad" or "Ugly" or "Stupid" or whatever other epithet is applied to this half-caste character.
> 
> Could someone play an Orc, instead? Sure. No problem. No reason not to. Unless the societies in the game space wouldn't tolerate having a full blood orc walking through town carrying a giant axe for... some reason. Possibly relating to warfare or other ongoing struggles...
> 
> But a half orc? Well. They're easier to stomach for most people in such a setting. Easier. But not Easy.



I cam here to say something similar.

Orcs being good (or not) is irrelevant to the pertinence of half-orcs as a PC race. Perhaps Orcs could also be a PC race in its own right, like elves and half-elves both exist, but I like half-X because they add a bit of (mechanical) variety and options for PCs without going too far into an alien mindset.

Either that or make half a dozen human regional/ethnic/cultural variants but somehow, I don't see WotC going into any subdivisions of humans beyond "you come from there, you speak that regional language but you know common anyway". Besides, these regional variants would be setting-specific, and so should Orcs as a PC race as far as I'm concerned.

Half-humans have the advantage to played and look like either of their parent races. Spock doesn't look much less than a Vulcan, Elrond doesn't look much less than an elf, and the fighting uruk-hai don't look much less than orcs and yet, all are a bit more relatable because they aren't completely inhuman.

That deserves to stay IMO.


----------



## Bedrockgames

One of the things I really enjoyed about 3E was the return of races like Half Orc and classes like Barbarian. It brought some of the rough edges back that the game had lost during 2E and late 1E (and I am a big 2E fan). Just in terms of flavor that immediately added something interesting to the game. I don't think one can say anything is 'needed'. But it is about what makes for a better game overall. Second Edition didn't have half orc, it worked fine without Half orc, but it was missing a bit of the sword and sorcery flavor that a lot of people enjoyed


----------



## Scott Christian

bedir than said:


> Being adopted isn't the same as being mixed race. Both stories and realities are valid



In real life, yes. For game clarification, it's easier make it straightforward for players, especially for internal consistency. That's all I am saying. Game design, not real life. 
Every half-race begs to question where all the others are? Half-orc, sure. Half-dwarf, no? If they want to make rules for that - cool. No problem with it. But then, what about the quarter-races? And then, why so human centric? What about the elvish-dwarvish-minotaur-halfling? The point is game design, and acceptance of game design walks the fence line.


----------



## DEFCON 1

There are many reasons why I do not like half-elves and half-orcs and would like how they are represented in D&D changed.  I don't mind the idea of children of two different lineages (and think it can definitely be a wonderful narrative to play)... I just don't like how they currently are represented in the game.

1) The humanocentric idea that they are half "elf" and half "orc" as the group names for people of those lineages.  Why does Human get the obvious pass?  The supposedly obvious default?  The fact that neither of these lineages ever get called "half-humans" denigrates the half that is used as the defining characteristic.  If we are going to define these two _specific_ mixed lineages as their own thing, there should be a different name for them.

2) Why are elves/humans and orcs/humans the only two that get defined by their mixed lineage (and thus their own entries in the Player's Handbook?)  Where is the dwarf/human entry?  Where is the elf/gnome entry?  The halfling/goblin entry?  The human/halfling entry?  If we are assuming that most of these humanoid races can interbreed... they there is no reason to single out the elf/human and orc/human as the only two that get their own entries for lineage selection.  This is one of the things that's been grandfathered into the current game from editions past... but I do not believe they warrant any specialness in getting their own PHB entry-- especially because the grandfathered reason for including "half-orcs" is so distasteful for how the interbreeding has been portrayed in the first place.

3) Like all lineages in the game... mechanically they are just three or four special features.  If we want to give players the ability to mix lineages, then these two specific lineages shouldn't have unique abilities.  Instead a player should select half their features from one of the lineages and then the other half from the other lineage, that way you can have every cross-lineage combination you want.  Again... these two _specific_ mixed lineages are no more important than any other and shouldn't get special treatment by their own entry in the PHB.


----------



## Micah Sweet

This is a solved problem if you use the Level Up origin system.  Heritage and culture are split, first of all, so you can mix and match freely.  A heritage has traits (which all members of a given heritage share) and a gift (which is a 1st level choice that represents differentiation between individuals, similar to the old sub-race idea when there are actually physical differences involved).  If you want to play a mixed heritage character, you choose the traits of one heritage and the gift of another.  Done and done.

WotC's drive to make everything simpler and simpler for the teeming masses of new players is homoginizing differences as fast as they can publish, IMO, and options like half-orc are going away regardless of their RP validity.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scribe said:


> In short, no.
> 
> I see no point in having it as a distinct entity. Just call it Orc, and assign those floating ASI as you see fit.
> 
> Same as Half Elf really.
> 
> Those races used to have meaning, at this point, I just don't see how they will continue to have relevance in whatever D&D is turning into.



I fully agree, except that you seem (unless I’m misreading you) to be expressing this with resignation or disgust, whereas I see it as a positive trend. 

What I think might be cool is a system without “half” anything, but with rules for making your own half races, like tabaxi-tiefling. 

For example, each race could have abilities assigned to tiers…e.g. “ribbon”, “lesser”, and “greater” and at each tier you can pick one ability  from either parent. 

Or maybe it would be a hot mess. :-/


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Bill Zebub said:


> What I think might be cool is a system without “half” anything, but with rules for making your own half races, like tabaxi-tiefling.
> 
> For example, each race could have abilities assigned to tiers…e.g. “ribbon”, “lesser”, and “greater” and at each tier you can pick one ability from either parent.
> 
> Or maybe it would be a hot mess. :-/




Level Up, Fantasy AGE, and to some extent Pathfinder don't have a problem with this.


----------



## Reynard

Different races with lor attached is really a strange legacy thing that can probably just go at this point. Give people a menu of "heritage abilities" and let them slap horns or pointed ears on their characters as they see fit. Some people will have all human worlds and some people will have Mos Eisley cantina worlds and everybody wins, rather than trying to make a list of allowed races. Of course the campaign setting books would have specific races and lore, but the core doesn't really need it.


----------



## MGibster

Charlaquin said:


> That’s Tieflings now.



Is it?  You're right, the description is right there in the PHB's description.  But I don't think I've seen tieflings treated as outsiders in a long, long time.  What does it really mean to be an outsider when your adventuring party is made up of a kenku, a fire genasi, a halfing, a goliath, and a bugbear?  But really, this applied to the half-orc as well.  It's been a long, long time since I've seen them treated as outsiders in any game I've played in.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Professor Murder said:


> Premise: Given the "softening" of Orcs in the mainline documents and likely continued efforts to remove the idea that any given race of playable peoples in DnD are inherently evil_, _does it make sense to have Half Orcs as a playable option in the next iteration of the PHB? Should instead players just get rules for playing Orcs outright in the PHB?
> 
> Thoughts?



I would prefer orcs in the PHB at this point, with no half-orcs as a distinct mechanical option. Add  a sidebar that say half-orcs exist, but you can use orc rules, human rules, or custom linage rules, depending on how you imaging the character.

No slippery slope here: we don't need to include all monstrous races. Orcs and kolbolds or goblins is enough to get the idea across. You could stick pc rules for other monstrous races in the Monster Manual.


----------



## Charlaquin

DEFCON 1 said:


> 2) Why are elves/humans and orcs/humans the only two that get defined by their mixed lineage (and thus their own entries in the Player's Handbook?)  Where is the dwarf/human entry?  Where is the elf/gnome entry?  The halfling/goblin entry?  The human/halfling entry?  If we are assuming that most of these humanoid races can interbreed... they there is no reason to single out the elf/human and orc/human as the only two that get their own entries for lineage selection.



Well, prior to 4e, elves, half-elves, humans, and half-orcs were the only PHB races of human height. 3.Xe categorized dwarves as Medium sized, but in earlier editions they were still small enough to have restrictions on what weapons they’re allowed to use. And orcs weren’t historically playable, but of the humanoid monsters orcs are probably the most humanlike in stature.

Gary apparently wasn’t into Size Difference stuff, is what I’m getting at.


----------



## jmartkdr2

MGibster said:


> The half-orc used to represent the archetypical outsider who may be treated poorly by others for their lineage.  This is something that many of WotC's target audience finds offensive.  And as others have pointed out, a lot of people are used to orcs being good guys at least part of the time.  So WotC might as well ditch the half-orc and just make orcs a playable race.



Eh, tieflings are pretty dang popular. They code to somewhat different racism, but that's a minor detail if you're just playing a fantasy adventure game.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Vaalingrade said:


> I'd rather see the Horc become something on its own with the orc taking one of the big guy slots.



The Horc should definitely have a breath weapon of some sort.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

bedir than said:


> My friends that are clearly both part of, and ignored by, both 'races' of their parents absolutely love the half-orc. It helps them feel like themselves, with a foot in both worlds. Telling such a person that they're really just an orc doesn't enable their story - it ends it.



Exactly this. 

Yes, the game still “needs” half-orcs.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

MGibster said:


> Is it?  You're right, the description is right there in the PHB's description.  But I don't think I've seen tieflings treated as outsiders in a long, long time.  What does it really mean to be an outsider when your adventuring party is made up of a kenku, a fire genasi, a halfing, a goliath, and a bugbear?  But really, this applied to the half-orc as well.  It's been a long, long time since I've seen them treated as outsiders in any game I've played in.



It depends on the situation. When I had a new player character bugbear join the party in Rime of the Frostmaiden they were initially being treated with hostility by the Ten Towners. But once they joined the party they were accepted, because people treat adventuring parties differently.


----------



## MGibster

jmartkdr2 said:


> Eh, tieflings are pretty dang popular. They code to somewhat different racism, but that's a minor detail if you're just playing a fantasy adventure game.



Tieflings are pretty darn cool and I've liked them since 2nd edition.  But you bring up a good point, I'm playing a fantasy adventure game.  For me at least, D&D is not a game where I engage in deep thought.  Like Minsc, we're butt kicking for goodness.


----------



## Scribe

Bill Zebub said:


> I fully agree, except that you seem (unless I’m misreading you) to be expressing this with resignation or disgust...



Correct. I do not like the direction of 5e, in pretty much any way.

Disgust is too strong a word though. Resignation, apathy, boredom, those would be accurate.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Today the stereotype of orcs are "bad guys, a bag of muscles without too much brain".

I would rather aasimars than tienflings, because the last is the bad guy being the popular star in the high-school, and the aasimar like the brighter student being totally ingored, and suffering bulling and the syndrome of the tall poppies, and a bad repuration by fault of false rumour created by enviers. 

* _Have you imagined any time a orc bard/skald singing a bardcore version of  "I like to move it"? _


----------



## Reynard

The outsider angle is an interesting one. "Ownership" over the outsider characters has kind of drifted from the nerdy white kids of yore to the queer folk and PoC players of today. Note: I am not saying that there are now no nerdy white kids that feel like outsiders, nor am I saying that all queer folk and PoC feel like outsiders. But as fantasies, RPGs allow us to be the better, more awesome, more well liked and appreciated versions of ourselves. Outsider character archetypes, from Drizzt onward, that end up being beloved heroes or infamous scoundrels are definitely a thing. As the tent expands, there's more "competition" for that role. Maybe that's one of the reasons we see the proliferation of outsider character archetypes, to make sure everyone has a chance to claim their own corner of that fantasy. It's especially interesting because there are dual -- sometimes duelling -- purposes in fantasy representation: the desire to make sure everyone can see themselves in the fantasy, regardless of who they are, and the desire to make sure that those don't becomes limits and people can be whatever they want within the fantasy.
I bet there is some really interesting writing being done on the subject of the intersection of identity, fantasy and D&D, particularly for millenials and GenZ. I will have to do some digging.


----------



## bedir than

Another boring conversation about mechanics that ignores that trend of the game is to widen the stories being able to be told, not shorten them.

Yes, you could insist to my friends that are considered half that their play option is to be half-devil, sure. I wouldn't expect that to go over well.


----------



## Medic

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I would rather aasimars than tienflings, because the last is the bad guy being the popular star in the high-school, and the aasimar like the brighter student being totally ingored, and suffering bulling and the syndrome of the tall poppies, and a bad repuration by fault of false rumour created by enviers.



While I am in the minority that vastly prefers aasimar to tieflings, this is... oddly specific.



Scott Christian said:


> I can get behind that as a player.
> 
> But, from a larger perspective, the feeling of having one foot in two worlds is a trope as old as time, and there are other ways of doing it, as opposed to being "mixed race." I think the new ideal will be a person of a race (say an orc) that was raised by elves or dwarves or humans or whatever. They will strongly associate with their culture but feel a longing for the ancestry.



I feel that this does not do justice to the difficulty that complicated ancestry brings in places where it matters. It just so happens that I am of mixed lineage myself. Reality being what it is, I frequently face _prejudice_ from both of my parent cultures, not acceptance. It is not so much having a foot in two worlds as it is being barred from having a foot in either.


----------



## DEFCON 1

doctorbadwolf said:


> Exactly this.
> 
> Yes, the game still “needs” half-orcs.



Rather, I think the game "needs" multiracial and mixed lineage character options, but not "half-orcs" specifically.

If the game has no intention of adding in more multiracial archetypes, then I suppose half-elves and half-orcs are better than nothing... but I don't see their inclusion to the exclusion of other mixed parentages to be worthwhile.  Elf/humans and orc/humans are no better than dwarf/orcs or elf/gnomes or whatever.  So if you are going to include mixed lineages in the base game, then open them up wider.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Medic said:


> While I am in the minority that vastly prefers aasimar to tieflings, this is... oddly specific.
> 
> 
> I feel that this does not do justice to the difficulty that complicated ancestry brings in places where it matters. It just so happens that I am of mixed lineage myself. Reality being what it is, I frequently face _prejudice_ from both of my parent cultures, not acceptance. It is not so much having a foot in two worlds as it is being barred from having a foot in either.



The first fantasy character i ever encountered like that was Tanis Half-Elven from Dragonlance, and that was his story.  That idea is definitely still very relevant to a lot of people.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

DEFCON 1 said:


> Rather, I think the game "needs" multiracial and mixed lineage character options, but not "half-orcs" specifically.
> 
> If the game has no intention of adding in more multiracial archetypes, then I suppose half-elves and half-orcs are better than nothing... but I don't see their inclusion to the exclusion of other mixed parentages to be worthwhile.  Elf/humans and orc/humans are no better than dwarf/orcs or elf/gnomes or whatever.  So if you are going to include mixed lineages in the base game, then open them up wider.



Specific mixed race heritage options with their own history and place in the world are not “better than nothing”, they’re important on their own. 

We may _also_ benefit from more robust custom lineage rules, but that does not _replace_ the role of these specific options.


----------



## DEFCON 1

doctorbadwolf said:


> Specific mixed race heritage options with their own history and place in the world are not “better than nothing”, they’re important on their own.



Which means they ARE better than not having them.

But I disagree that the half-orc lineage is better than the gnome/halfling lineage.  They are equally as important.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

The discussion reminds me that in Critical Role there has been several Uniya, that is elf-orc, NPCs. I don't know if Mercer has written any PC rules for them in case someone wants to play one.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Saying half-orcs aren't necessary because there are more popular options is like saying Avengers don't need Hulk, or Justice League doesn't need Green Arrow, X-Men doesn't need Polaris, Vampire: the Masquerade has got enough number of bloodlines, Transfomers has got enough characters, or Fortnite has got enough skins. Always there is space for one more when the idea is good.

When you find the right way to sell an idea somebody will be willing to buy it. 

An orc shaman could be interesting because for the eyes of the rest of the tribe the spellcaster orc would be the equivalent to a nerd, suffering more bulling and reject than the ordinary wizards, or the warlocks. 

Sometimes I thought about the idea of a funny love-hate relation, with a piece of unresoluted sexual tension and echi comedy, between a metrosexual male half-elf ranger and a tomboy half-orc shaman.











Linderium Tesarien Racem: Invasion of the Sombers is a fantasy saga where the bad guys are the elves, and the female main character is an orc queen who marries whith the human king for a orc-human alliance. I guess there is a traslation to English.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

bedir than said:


> My friends that are clearly both part of, and ignored by, both 'races' of their parents absolutely love the half-orc. It helps them feel like themselves, with a foot in both worlds. Telling such a person that they're really just an orc doesn't enable their story - it ends it.



It's not telling them that they're "really just an orc", it's telling them that they're mechanically identical to an orc. I would still give some roleplaying advice on how Half-Orcs are treated differently from full-blooded Orcs and stuff like that. I just don't think they need to be mechanically distinct races, especially with how Orcs aren't assumed to always be stupid and evil anymore and they share a lot of the same racial traits. 

I would absolutely give advice on what it's like to play as a mixed-race/species character in D&D 5.5e. I just don't think that we need both Orcs and Half-Orcs as different mechanical races.


----------



## MGibster

Reynard said:


> But as fantasies, RPGs allow us to be the better, more awesome, more well liked and appreciated versions of ourselves.



Are you kidding?  Part of the reason I play D&D is so I can pretend for just a little while what it's like to be a heroic wizard or fighter instead of the epic demi-god I am on a daily basis. 



Reynard said:


> The outsider angle is an interesting one. "Ownership" over the outsider characters has kind of drifted from the nerdy white kids of yore to the queer folk and PoC players of today. Note: I am not saying that there are now no nerdy white kids that feel like outsiders, nor am I saying that all queer folk and PoC feel like outsiders.



I don't know if the outsider aspect was ever about nerdy kids or that they had ownership of the concept.  I never interpreted the half-orc as representing nerdy white people who didn't quite fit in.  I always viewed them as the red head in a society where the only red heads are our neighbors who occasionally raid our villages to murder and plunder.  But, yeah, the idea of what outsider might mean changes as the decades roll on by.  In the second X-Men movie, mutants were a better allegory for LGBTQ people than they were for race.  We even have a scene where Iceman comes out to his parents and his mother asks, " Have you tried not being a mutant?"


----------



## FitzTheRuke

If "race" goes like it did in Monsters of the Multiverse (which seems likely) than it becomes a short list of features and some backstory. There will be plenty of room for _more_ of that sort of options, rather than less, so I doubt that they will be gotten rid of. There might be little reason to include them (and I've seen some excellent arguments here to the contrary) but there's no reason at all NOT to include them.

I think we'll see more race options in the future, not less.


----------



## Mind of tempest

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Today the stereotype of orcs are "bad guys, a bag of muscles without too much brain".
> 
> I would rather aasimars than tienflings, because the last is the bad guy being the popular star in the high-school, and the aasimar like the brighter student being totally ingored, and suffering bulling and the syndrome of the tall poppies, and a bad repuration by fault of false rumour created by enviers.
> 
> * _Have you imagined any time a orc bard/skald singing a bardcore version of  "I like to move it"? _



tiefling has no inbuilt need to go towards evil but are irrationally disliked and are cool looking that is why they are a handbook race as for reasons I would not like to get into they resonate with people as they feel similarly, whilst little aasimar golden child is likely to get preferential treatment as they were born of something people see as desirable.

look I am not for deleting the half orc and half elf but we could free up two whole slots to put in things that might honestly matter more to people.


----------



## Minigiant

DEFCON 1 said:


> 2) Why are elves/humans and orcs/humans the only two that get defined by their mixed lineage (and thus their own entries in the Player's Handbook?) Where is the dwarf/human entry? Where is the elf/gnome entry? The halfling/goblin entry? The human/halfling entry? If we are assuming that most of these humanoid races can interbreed... they there is no reason to single out the elf/human and orc/human as the only two that get their own entries for lineage selection. This is one of the things that's been grandfathered into the current game from editions past... but I do not believe they warrant any specialness in getting their own PHB entry-- especially because the grandfathered reason for including "half-orcs" is so distasteful for how the interbreeding has been portrayed in the first place.




Gnelf, dwworcs, and goblings for 6e.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

FitzTheRuke said:


> If "race" goes like it did in Monsters of the Multiverse (which seems likely) than it becomes a short list of features and some backstory. There will be plenty of room for _more_ of that sort of options, rather than less, so I doubt that they will be gotten rid of. There might be little reason to include them (and I've seen some excellent arguments here to the contrary) but there's no reason at all NOT to include them.
> 
> I think we'll see more race options in the future, not less.



Yep. 

Which is basically the opposite direction than what I'd want. I'd prefer fewer, but well defined species, that are conceptually distinct and have a decent amount of mechanical significance.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Medic said:


> While I am in the minority that vastly prefers aasimar to tieflings, this is... oddly specific.
> 
> 
> I feel that this does not do justice to the difficulty that complicated ancestry brings in places where it matters. It just so happens that I am of mixed lineage myself. Reality being what it is, I frequently face _prejudice_ from both of my parent cultures, not acceptance. It is not so much having a foot in two worlds as it is being barred from having a foot in either.



Yep. I’m a white Latino, and while that’s a pretty easy mix to navigate here in sunny California, it still changes how I experience the world. 

There are things I have in common with other Latines, and things that I never will, and there is something…insidiously unique in being a member of the ethnic group that sold old guy is complaining about on the assumption that I will agree with him, because I’m a pale semi-ginger with a red beard.  

I know from friends that every possible mix of ancestry comes with its own cultural labyrinth to navigate, and I don’t think it is useful or even acceptable to erase that by making all mixed race characters use the same rules. 

Generalized rules for that are a consolation prize for the rules not having room for every combination under the sun. The two most well known mixed ancestries should never be erased from the actual mechanics of the game, or from the core books, IMO.


----------



## Azzy

I'm glad most of the people on this thread are not in charge of D&D. lol

I doubt that the half-orc is going anywhere anytime soon, and I'm happy about that.


----------



## Scribe

bedir than said:


> Another boring conversation about mechanics that ignores that trend of the game is to widen the stories being able to be told, not shorten them.
> 
> Yes, you could insist to my friends that are considered half that their play option is to be half-devil, sure. I wouldn't expect that to go over well.



I think the point some are making, is that 'half-orc' and 'half-elf' are too limiting, and to have every option broken out into a distinct character choice, will be...obnoxious.

Instead, I would imagine the more optimal path is a 'make your own' character race template, that allows for any mix players want.

Custom Lineage would be the obvious choice for a beginning point, I would think.


----------



## Mirtek

Is any race needed? Just assign a point value to every racial trait and let players buy them according to some budget and then slap on whatever fluff description they want


----------



## Faolyn

DND_Reborn said:


> If half-orcs and half-elves are gone in the future, so should aasimars, tieflings, and probably others: just bring in playable celestials and fiends.
> 
> That being said, if future editions _don't_ include them, I'll either add them back in (like everything else) or just not play it.



Nah, those are sufficiently different. 

First off, it can be assumed that celestials and fiends have a minimum of free will. Yeah, it might be possible for one to rise or fall, but that's one in a million or tens of millions rather than the significant percentage of humanoids who go against a "racial alignment." Orcs, in 3x, were "often" Chaotic Evil, which means that anywhere from 50-60% of them could be of any of the other eight alignments (not that this was ever done in any of the books, but...).

Secondly, tieflings, aasimars, and genasi aren't (necessarily) half-whatever. They can be said to be the product of a far distant bloodline (great-great granma had a fun night out with an incubus), the result of a pact, a blessing or curse, spending too much time on another plane, or even the result magic gone awry.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Faolyn said:


> Nah, those are sufficiently different.
> 
> First off, it can be assumed that celestials and fiends have a minimum of free will. Yeah, it might be possible for one to rise or fall, but that's one in a million or tens of millions rather than the significant percentage of humanoids who go against a "racial alignment." Orcs, in 3x, were "often" Chaotic Evil, which means that anywhere from 50-60% of them could be of any of the other eight alignments (not that this was ever done in any of the books, but...).
> 
> Secondly, tieflings, aasimars, and genasi aren't (necessarily) half-whatever. They can be said to be the product of a far distant bloodline (great-great granma had a fun night out with an incubus), the result of a pact, a blessing or curse, spending too much time on another plane, or even the result magic gone awry.



that and most celestials and fiends are far too powerful to be playable.


----------



## Mistwell

I do strongly suspect there will be half-orcs in the upcoming D&D revision. One basic premise of every single revision (as opposed to full new edition) is you will be able to, in some reasonable manner, convert over your existing long-loved and played PCs over to the new revision. Which means, in the very least, all the existing core races will in some manner be in the revision in some way. They won't be just called "orcs", though there may also be playable orcs. There will be some form of a half-orc race, if for nothing else because it's not a new edition of the game and it would piss off a portion of the audience needlessly that they cannot bring over their existing PCs that are based on the core book.

Also I don't think half-elves will ever leave D&D, even in a new edition. The half-elf as a concept race pre-dates D&D in pretty meaningful ways, through Lord of the Rings and other core fantasy concepts. 50 years of miniatures and artwork and player characters represent half-elves as distinct from elves. I think there is no chance half-elf leaves the game.


----------



## Blue

Professor Murder said:


> _Preface: The larger issue of "race" in DnD and how it is changing and will be presented differently in 5+ed is it's own topic. The issue of "mixed race" and how it is presented, such as the half-elf, half-orc, and those of more extended lineage, such as Aasimar and Tieflings is it's own topic. That said, I fully expect this to eventually devolve into just arguments about those issues along a long enough timeline._
> 
> Premise: Given the "softening" of Orcs in the mainline documents and likely continued efforts to remove the idea that any given race of playable peoples in DnD are inherently evil_, _does it make sense to have Half Orcs as a playable option in the next iteration of the PHB? Should instead players just get rules for playing Orcs outright in the PHB?
> 
> Thoughts?



For some parts of it - "I want to play a traditionally foe culture", orcs work fine.  For the "I am caught between by (brutish/aggessive/etc) half and my (civilized/weak/urbane) half" it is still good.

If subraces still existed, I'd love to see half-* as human subraces.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Faolyn said:


> Nah, those are sufficiently different.



Perhaps to you...


----------



## Professor Murder

Mistwell said:


> Also I don't think half-elves will ever leave D&D, even in a new edition. The half-elf as a concept race pre-dates D&D in pretty meaningful ways, through Lord of the Rings and other core fantasy concepts. 50 years of miniatures and artwork and player characters represent half-elves as distinct from elves. I think there is no chance half-elf leaves the game.



I had been thinking about this. What was the impetus of introducing Half-Orcs into AD&D? Half-Elves have Tolkien. Are Half-Orcs also cribbed from somewhere or are they an actual original creation?


----------



## Composer99

Professor Murder said:


> I had been thinking about this. What was the impetus of introducing Half-Orcs into AD&D? Half-Elves have Tolkien. Are Half-Orcs also cribbed from somewhere or are they an actual original creation?



D&D half-orcs are probably inspired by half-orcs in genre literature; there are half-orcs in LotR, for instance, which were Men whose blood was mixed with that of Orcs by the craft of Saruman. I'm not familiar enough with other genre literature that inspired D&D to say whether any of them having anything similar.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

There is a wiki about PC races created by Litle Red Gobling, and lots of them are halfbreed, but it is 3rd Ed or Pathfinder 1.

Other option may be to add bloodtouched feats, for example a human with an elf ancestor could enjoy a elftouched feat.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I am hoping (though in no great expectation) that races will be defined going forward as a number of independent traits, select 2 or 3 this would allow custom half whatever by combining a number of traits from the ancestor races.


----------



## Mistwell

Professor Murder said:


> I had been thinking about this. What was the impetus of introducing Half-Orcs into AD&D? Half-Elves have Tolkien. Are Half-Orcs also cribbed from somewhere or are they an actual original creation?



They are also in Tolkien though less prominent than half-elves. In The Two Towers, Gamling, a man of Rohan, refers to the army bred by Saruman as _half-orcs_ and _goblin-men._ Tolkein later commented on half-orcs being a re-discovered of Saruman.


----------



## Mistwell

UngainlyTitan said:


> I am hoping (though in no great expectation) that races will be defined going forward as a number of independent traits, select 2 or 3 this would allow custom half whatever by combining a number of traits from the ancestor races.



Maybe in 6e but I just don't see that level of massive concept change in the revision - which I think you predict as well as you're saying you have no great expectation of it. 
Seems like the creators keep stressing it's just a revision of existing rules and not even a half edition, but people on message boards (and I am guilty of this as well) keep filling the concept with new-edition level changes.


----------



## CleverNickName

UngainlyTitan said:


> I am hoping (though in no great expectation) that races will be defined going forward as a number of independent traits, select 2 or 3 this would allow custom half whatever by combining a number of traits from the ancestor races.



I like that idea.  Something like:

*HALF-ORC ANCESTRY TRAITS*
You can read, write, and speak one additional language, such as Orc.   Choose up to 3 additional traits from the following list.

*Ability Score Increase: *One ability score of your choice increases by 2 and a second ability score of your choice increases by 1 (to a maximum of 20).

*Aggression: *as a Bonus Action, you may move up to your speed toward an opponent.

*Darkvision: * you gain darkvision, too a distance of 60 feet.

*Menacing:*  you are proficient with Intimidation, and your proficiency bonus for this skill is doubled.

*Primal Savagery: *You know the _primal savagery_ cantrip.  When you reach 3rd level, you may cast _cause fear_ once with this trait, without using a spell slot.  You must finish a long test to use this feature again.

*Relentless Endurance:* When you are reduced to 0 Hit Points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 hit point instead. You can’t use this feature again until you finish a Long Rest.

*Savage Attacks:* When you score a critical hit with a melee weapon Attack, you can roll one of the weapon’s damage dice one additional time and add it to the extra damage of the critical hit.

*Weapon Training: *you gain proficiency with the Greataxe, Greatsword, and one additional Martial weapon of your choice.


----------



## Professor Murder

Honestly I don't want the game to go so modular. It's one of the things that turns me off Pathfinder tbh.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Mistwell said:


> Maybe in 6e but I just don't see that level of massive concept change in the revision - which I think you predict as well as you're saying you have no great expectation of it.
> Seems like the creators keep stressing it's just a revision of existing rules and not even a half edition, but people on message boards (and I am guilty of this as well) keep filling the concept with new-edition level changes.



Unfortunately I think you are correct. I see it as a lost opportunity in this regard in that the current races could be redefined in that way with out changing anything about them but it leaves the way for further expansions to expand the traits of the races, separating culture form biology and really empowering DMs down the road.


----------



## DND_Reborn

To expand on the idea I posted upthread, I was thinking something like this:

Orc:

*Adrenaline Rush* (strong feature)
*Darkvision *(strong feature)
*Powerful Build* (weak feature)
*Relentless Endurance* (weak feature)

Tabaxi:

*Cat's Claws* (strong? feature)
*Cat's Talent* (weak feature)
*Darkvision *(strong feature)
*Feline Agility* (weak feature)

A PC with such lineage would pick two strong features and two weak features, perhaps one from each parent or possibly in any combination?

One example might be:

*Adrenaline Rush* (strong feature- Orc)
*Darkvision *(strong feature - Tabaxi)
*Feline Agility* (weak feature- Tabaxi)
*Relentless Endurance* (weak feature - Orc)
The PC is quick and agile, but with the endurance of the orc. ASI's might even be +2 DEX and +1 CON?


----------



## jmartkdr2

Professor Murder said:


> I had been thinking about this. What was the impetus of introducing Half-Orcs into AD&D? Half-Elves have Tolkien. Are Half-Orcs also cribbed from somewhere or are they an actual original creation?



I recall being told Uruk-hai were essentially half-orcs.

And having read the whole thread, I've changed my mind: half-orcs should stay in as a distinct race or variant (ie subrace of humans or some such)


----------



## Reynard

jmartkdr2 said:


> I recall being told Uruk-hai were essentially half-orcs.
> 
> And having read the whole thread, I've changed my mind: half-orcs should stay in as a distinct race or variant (ie subrace of humans or some such)



In Tolkien,  half orcs were meant to move freely among Men as spies. Hence why the AD&D half orc could be an assassin. They weren't misunderstood. They were evil.


----------



## Weiley31

Eh, then it's pretty much doing it how Pathfinder 2 does it. I rather just keep Half-Orcs in.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I don't see Half-Orcs going away even if there could be Orcs in a new PHB. After all Half-Elf hasn't disappeared yet.

Tieflings have since 2e been the Marginalized Minority Option since their first appearance in the Planescape Campaign Setting Boxed Set, and the writeup in Fiends: Faces of Evil was maybe the first time they addressed gender and sexuality of Tieflings or possibly any race not being "conventional". 

While Aasimar have been the Model Minority Option. But older editions have made the mistake of making Aasimar too "Aryan" which has left a negative opinion in some cases.


----------



## JEB

Crimson Longinus said:


> The discussion reminds me that in Critical Role there has been several Uniya, that is elf-orc, NPCs. I don't know if Mercer has written any PC rules for them in case someone wants to play one.



The Tal'dorei Campaign Setting Reborn book has guidelines for "mixed ancestry", though I'm not sure how meticulous they are.


----------



## Eltab

"What about human/dwarf?"

The D&D half-human / half-dwarf is a Mul.
Its Dark Sun background material creates a place for 'broken family' backstories.


----------



## Minigiant

I will be that person.

I vehemently dislike the "pick a human feature and pick orc/elf/dwarf feature and combine them to make a race idea". I prefer the more fantastic idea that a mix of races creates new features. Like how the human abition cancels the elven fey aloofness. Perhaps the human skeleton makes the orc muscle stand better.

My Half Orc would be


*Age.* Half-orcs mature a little faster than humans, reaching adulthood around age 14. They age noticeably faster and rarely live longer than 75 years.
*Size.* Half-orcs are somewhat larger and bulkier than humans, and they range from 5 to well over 6 feet tall. Your size is Medium.
*Speed.* Your base walking speed is 30 feet.
*Darkvision.* Thanks to your orc blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
*Menacing Posture.* You have advantage in Charisma checks against creature that value physical might and Strength checks to knock down objects and creatures while standing still.
*Relentless Endurance.* When you are reduced to 0 hit points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 hit point instead. You can't use this feature again until you finish a long rest.
*Savage Attacks.* When you score a critical hit with a melee weapon attack or spell attack within 10 feet of you, you can roll one of the weapon's damage dice one additional time or spell's damage dice two additional time and add it to the extra damage of the critical hit.
*Languages.* You can speak, read, and write Common and Orc.

Orc would be the big bruiser race. Half orc can be the "big skillmonkey" race.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Minigiant said:


> I prefer the more fantastic idea that a mix of races creates new features.



The only issue with that is you now need to create or homebrew every combination you want to allow--which if you create a lot of those could be a LOT of races.

If you keep just a handful or so of combinations, then I would agree.


----------



## Minigiant

DND_Reborn said:


> The only issue with that is you now need to create or homebrew every combination you want to allow--which if you create a lot of those could be a LOT of races.
> 
> If you keep just a handful or so of combinations, then I would agree.




So?

Personally I would just determine with combos are common and just do those. Homebrew or Custom lineage the off the wall ones.


Human/Elf
Human/Orc
Human/Dwarf
Dwarf/StoutHalfling
ForestElf/Gnome
Goblin/Hobgoblin


----------



## DND_Reborn

Minigiant said:


> So?



I think the point was obvious. You don't agree, fine, but considering how some people want any or all combinations it still needs to be considered.



Minigiant said:


> Personally I would* just determine with combos are common* and just do those. Homebrew or Custom lineage the off the wall ones.
> 
> 
> Human/Elf
> Human/Orc
> Human/Dwarf
> Dwarf/StoutHalfling
> ForestElf/Gnome
> Goblin/Hobgoblin



Those might be the common ones to you, but not to others. If you want the _really_ common combos, we already have those.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I think having each race have a ''swap-able'' feature marked with * of a similar power level would be best.

So if you are of mixed heritage, you could swap the * of your base race with the * of the other parent race.

Because if we start to create a full original write up for each possible combination each time a new races is presented (or even worse, when a new elf subrace is presented!), we wont see the end of it. 

I know on the internet its fun to character build your background and all that, but at the actual table when facing the hordes of the Underdark, your character genetics should not be the main focus of the rules.


----------



## Minigiant

DND_Reborn said:


> I think the point was obvious. You don't agree, fine, but considering how some people want any or all combinations it still needs to be considered.
> 
> 
> Those might be the common ones to you, but not to others. If you want the _really_ common combos, we already have those.



I don't think we should devalue the common combos across multiple offical settings just to support the weird ones for homebrew settings.

Do we make Half Orcs and Half Elves lame just to support Half Goblin Half Haregon?

I think that's where the DM comes in. Make the official Halk Orc and Half Elf interesting. Leave it up to DMs to handle the bunny gobbos.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Minigiant said:


> I don't think we should devalue the common combos across multiple offical settings just to support the weird ones for homebrew settings.



No one said anything about devaluing them, and it seems enough people are bored with them that supporting the "weird ones" (as you call them) might be a good direction for WotC to explore?



Minigiant said:


> *Do we make Half Orcs and Half Elves lame* just to support Half Goblin Half Haregon?



Why would they become lame (or at least, lamer than they already are...)?


----------



## Minigiant

DND_Reborn said:


> No one said anything about devaluing them, and it seems enough people are bored with them that supporting the "weird ones" (as you call them) might be a good direction for WotC to explore?
> 
> 
> Why would they become lame (or at least, lamer than they already are...)?



Because Half Orcs already have a feature Orcs don't get in 5e. And in 4e as well.

Going "Take an Orc feature and a Human Feature and mix them" deletes that.

This is the issue. Half Orcs and Orcs are different mentally, physically, mechanically, and in lore *in the books*.  Anyonee saying they are redudant or just have swappable features are actively making them lame by ignoring or dismissing the uniqueness of the two races.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Minigiant said:


> Because Half ORcs already have feature Orcs don't get in 5e. And in 4e as well.
> 
> Going "Take an Orc feature and a Human Feature and mix them" deletes that.



It depends on what those features are. Even current RAW, Half-Orcs have:

*Darkvision *(orc)
*Relentless Endurance* (orc)
*Menacing* (skills-Intimidation; human)

and *Savage Attacks*, which neither currently have (a granted point), but isn't a far stretch from something like _*Savage Attacker*_ (the feat, which variant humans get a feat anyway).

So, a lot depends on how such a system is created. Using my own (above) as a template, the current Half-Orc could easily be re-imagined as:

*Darkvision *(strong feature - Orc)
*Relentless Endurance* (weak feature - Orc)
*Savage Attacker* (strong feature; feat - Human)
*Menacing *(weak feature, skills - Human)

And would be even more versatile due to the Human component. It isn't _that much_ of a stretch, really.

Even the current Half-Elf could be done as follows:

*Darkvision *(strong feature - Elf)
*Fey Ancestry* (weak feature - Elf)
*Skill Versatility* (weak feature x2 - Human)
*Extra ASI +1* (weak feature extra, see below)

With the caveat that if you select more weak features (as in the double human weak above), you get an additional ASI +1, which is why Half-Elves get +2,+1,*+1* instead of just +2,+1.

It is practically build in already, without much work.


----------



## James Gasik

Another reason to treat "half-races" as being unique, rather than a mix of traits, is hybrid vigor.  Most likely, the offspring of two races should have higher Constitution than their parents.

Also, being able to interbreed would suggest that the two races are related.  D&D handwaves this in the case of dragons and planar ancestry, but most races shouldn't be able to interbreed unless their species are actually related.  In Tolkien's Middle-Earth, this was apparently true with Humans, Elves, and Goblins/Orcs, and presumably Hobbits (though we never see any examples).

But D&D has no shared ancestry between Elves and Orcs.  However, thanks to the reclassification of Goblins as Fey, perhaps they do have connections to Elves.  Why Humans can have children with Elves at all is curious- perhaps Elves are still just enough "extraplanar" that the rules that allow for Genasi, Aasimar, and Tieflings apply.  Or the origins of Humans are tied to Elves somehow?

Of course there are exceptions in a fantasy game as to why such things can be possible, even among unrelated species, but it usually boils down to "a Wizard did it".

Or maybe a Bard, the old-fashioned way.  Got to start those Sorcerer bloodlines somehow!


----------



## DND_Reborn

James Gasik said:


> Also, being able to interbreed would suggest that the two races are related. D&D handwaves this in the case of dragons and planar ancestry, but most races shouldn't be able to interbreed unless their species are actually related. In Tolkien's Middle-Earth, this was apparently true with Humans, Elves, and Goblins/Orcs, and presumably Hobbits (though we never see any examples).



I'll second this point.

Despite my posts, personally I am not a fan of a lot of half-races and would prefer none at all. But, I know that isn't the trend the game is going, so my offering is just that, a possible solution _if_ WotC decides to continue in that direction.


----------



## Shardstone

I'm someone who is biracial, but tbh, that blue orc art in MOTM really hit, so I'm good without the half-orc anymore. But, I'd rather there just be the PF2E method where you pick a race and you put the half-race feature onto it. Then I could actually have fun exploring the ideas of being mixed in weird fantasy ways without always having to be a half-elf or half-orc.


----------



## Minigiant

DND_Reborn said:


> It depends on what those features are. Even current RAW, Half-Orcs have:
> 
> *Darkvision *(orc)
> *Relentless Endurance* (orc)
> *Menacing* (skills-Intimidation; human)
> 
> and *Savage Attacks*, which neither currently have (a granted point), but isn't a far stretch from something like _*Savage Attacker*_ (the feat, which variant humans get a feat anyway).
> 
> So, a lot depends on how such a system is created. Using my own (above) as a template, the current Half-Orc could easily be re-imagined as:
> 
> *Darkvision *(strong feature - Orc)
> *Relentless Endurance* (weak feature - Orc)
> *Savage Attacker* (strong feature; feat - Human)
> *Menacing *(weak feature, skills - Human)
> 
> And would be even more versatile due to the Human component. It isn't _that much_ of a stretch, really.
> 
> Even the current Half-Elf could be done as follows:
> 
> *Darkvision *(strong feature - Elf)
> *Fey Ancestry* (weak feature - Elf)
> *Skill Versatility* (weak feature x2 - Human)
> *Extra ASI +1* (weak feature extra, see below)
> 
> With the caveat that if you select more weak features (as in the double human weak above), you get an additional ASI +1, which is why Half-Elves get +2,+1,*+1* instead of just +2,+1.
> 
> It is practically build in already, without much work.




Savage Attacks and Savage Attacker are not the same.
Savage Attacks adds a die to melee damage and is specifically designed to make Half Orcs prefer Greataxes.
Savage Attack rerolls all damage dice ones a turn.

That's my point. You would be removing the Half Orc's specialness to support a Half Goblin and Half Gnome

Also racial skill profs look like the are going as will.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Minigiant said:


> Savage Attacks and Savage Attacker are not the same.



_Really? _

Hmm... I think I wrote something about that. Oh, yeah, _here_ it is...


DND_Reborn said:


> and *Savage Attacks*, which neither currently have (a granted point), but *isn't a far stretch from something like* _*Savage Attacker*_



Get it?


----------



## Minigiant

DND_Reborn said:


> _Really? _
> 
> Hmm... I think I wrote something about that. Oh, yeah, _here_ it is...
> 
> Get it?



They're barely alike other than being rerolls.
Savage Attack is Brutal Critical. That point of the Greataxe is that it is worse than the Greatsword except in the hands of a half orc or mid level barbarian.
Savage Attacker (feat) boosts Greatswords further over Greataxes.

The half Orc is the Greataxe race. That's what Half Orcs have over Orcs. Their body and mind is better suited for greataxes.

Now you can say, that's a little too small for a racial difference. That''s why I would either extend it to spells or give all half orcs greataxe and greatclubproficiency (saying that the greataxe feels natural in the hands and is weighted perfecting with the meld of human and orc bodies).

I might even go further and make all half orcs get Extra Attack but only with greataxes and greatclubs. 

The halforc wizard with a giant club feels like a great image. You have the orcish warrior with a big club but the human curiosity of them being a wizard.


----------



## Minigiant

James Gasik said:


> Another reason to treat "half-races" as being unique, rather than a mix of traits, is hybrid vigor.  Most likely, the offspring of two races should have higher Constitution than their parents.
> 
> Also, being able to interbreed would suggest that the two races are related.  D&D handwaves this in the case of dragons and planar ancestry, but most races shouldn't be able to interbreed unless their species are actually related.  In Tolkien's Middle-Earth, this was apparently true with Humans, Elves, and Goblins/Orcs, and presumably Hobbits (though we never see any examples).
> 
> But D&D has no shared ancestry between Elves and Orcs.  However, thanks to the reclassification of Goblins as Fey, perhaps they do have connections to Elves.  Why Humans can have children with Elves at all is curious- perhaps Elves are still just enough "extraplanar" that the rules that allow for Genasi, Aasimar, and Tieflings apply.  Or the origins of Humans are tied to Elves somehow?
> 
> Of course there are exceptions in a fantasy game as to why such things can be possible, even among unrelated species, but it usually boils down to "a Wizard did it".
> 
> Or maybe a Bard, the old-fashioned way.  Got to start those Sorcerer bloodlines somehow!



the PHB hints a possibility that Stout halflings have Dwarven blood.

In my homebrew I ran with it and made the Halfling Goddess marry her 2nd oldest son to the Dwarf god's 2nd oldest daughter. An the union creates the ability for Dwarves and Halflings to have children.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Minigiant said:


> The half Orc is the Greataxe race.



Wow, that is severely limiting view...



Minigiant said:


> I might even go further and make all half orcs get Extra Attack but only with greataxes and greatclubs.



But that seems to be the direction you see half orcs going.

You _do_ realize that everything I'm suggesting would make for a much more versatile and less limited half-orc race??? (Which would more likely appeal to more players IME.)

Any way, this is going no where fast, so enjoy your greataxe half-orcs. Frankly, savage attacker is a pretty poor and limiting racial trait IMO, so I am glad someone seems to like it.


----------



## Stormonu

Don't touch people's gnomes, don't touch my half-orc.

I was furious when it was removed in 2E for that edition.  Prior to dragonborn, it was my favorite D&D race.


----------



## Azzy

Stormonu said:


> Don't touch people's gnomes, don't touch my half-orc.
> 
> *I was furious when it was removed in 2E for that edition.*  Prior to dragonborn, it was my favorite D&D race.



As was I.


----------



## Minigiant

DND_Reborn said:


> Wow, that is severely limiting view...



It is. That's why I wish to expand it within its own unique area.



DND_Reborn said:


> But that seems to be the direction you see half orcs going.
> 
> You _do_ realize that everything I'm suggesting would make for a much more versatile and less limited half-orc race??? (Which would more likely appeal to more players IME.)
> 
> Any way, this is going no where fast, so enjoy your greataxe half-orcs. Frankly, savage attacker is a pretty poor and limiting racial trait IMO, so I am glad someone seems to like it.



My point is that at a certain point, you end up dilluting the race by making its features swappable, its racial abilities freed, and its lore and culture unlinked.

There's no point of having an a half orc or an orc if there is no major mental, physical, or culture differences between them. Especially if custom lineage is a thing.

The better design in a post-Tasha worldis to focus on uniqueness. If a "swap feature" Half Orc and a full Orc are extremely similiar, you are just making redundant races in a game where race is already less than class, scores, feats, and subclass.


----------



## Charlaquin

DND_Reborn said:


> The only issue with that is you now need to create or homebrew every combination you want to allow--which if you create a lot of those could be a LOT of races.
> 
> If you keep just a handful or so of combinations, then I would agree.



A potential solution is to say that the various “races” are what we would consider separate species, and aren’t compatible breeding partners. Then if you do want any half-and-half races, you specify that they’re sterile crossbreeds like mules, hinnies, ligers, and tyons.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Stormonu said:


> I was furious when it was removed in 2E for that edition.



You know, since we only used 2E as a hybrid with 1E, I never even noticed half-orc wasn't in 2E! To us, they never left...



Minigiant said:


> If a "swap feature" Half Orc and a full Orc are extremely similiar, you are just making redundant races in a game



They aren't though. The half-orc has half the features of the full orc and half the features of something else.

With 4 features for orc, for instance, there are 6 combinations of two features each (more if you include the weak duplicates option) for the orc-side of a half-orc alone, plus all the combinations of features for all the other races that could constitute the other half of the half-orc.

This makes the vast varieties of half-orc vastly different from orc--hardly "redundant".

Well, to reiterate:


DND_Reborn said:


> *Any way, this is going no where fast*, so enjoy your greataxe half-orcs. Frankly, savage attacker is a pretty poor and limiting racial trait IMO, so I am glad someone seems to like it.




Cheers!


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

At least, if those half-x races have their own identity and have descendant that arent just diluted versions their ancestors, I think they should have a name. Being called half-X when your kind is kinda common would be offensive, I think.


----------



## Staffan

Paul Farquhar said:


> The idea of a lineage, as opposed to a race, is you do not have to be "genetically pure" to use those stats.
> 
> Thus, half elves are unnecessary. You can still play characters with both elven and human ancestry, but you stat them with whatever lineage best describes what they can do. What you look like has been removed, that is now up to the player.



Personally, I like to have half-orcs and half-elves that are distinct from their parent races. Much like bronze has different properties than either copper or tin, so does the half-orc have properties neither the human nor the orc have. That is something I think is missing from the way Pathfinder handles them (essentially as human sub-races with low-light vision and the ability to take both human and elf/orc feats, but nothing that's distinctly half-elf or half-orc).

I also like how in Eberron, half-elves have developed a culture distinct from elves and humans, and how most half-elves have two half-elf parents. That's not quite the same for half-orcs: rather, most of them come from the Shadow Marches where many clans include both humans, orcs, and half-orcs.


----------



## DND_Reborn

vincegetorix said:


> At least, if those half-x races have their own identity and have descendant that arent just diluted versions their ancestors, I think they should have a name. Being called half-X when your kind is kinda common would be offensive, I think.



Also a good point.

This is largely table/world specific IME. I've had (and played in) games where half-orcs had their own identity but also in games where they were always just individuals making their way in the world. So, are half-orcs their own "people" or individuals who mix with either orcs or humans or make it on their own?

(Same for half-elves, of course...)

Personally, I never have imagined either to be common enough to be considered their own "people", but I know others have.


----------



## MGibster

vincegetorix said:


> Being called half-X when your kind is kinda common would be offensive, I think.



I hear halflings complain about that all the time!  Truthfully I don't.  Not unless I'm sitting down or tying my shoes or something.


----------



## MGibster

Staffan said:


> I also like how in Eberron, half-elves have developed a culture distinct from elves and humans, and how most half-elves have two half-elf parents. That's not quite the same for half-orcs: rather, most of them come from the Shadow Marches where many clans include both humans, orcs, and half-orcs.



I dislike that the most about a half anything race.  If we're at the point where they have their own distinct culture and viable population they're not half-anything they're their own thing.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Stormonu said:


> Don't touch people's gnomes, don't touch my half-orc.
> 
> I was furious when it was removed in 2E for that edition.  Prior to dragonborn, it was my favorite D&D race.



I take it you a big bruiser player then?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> A potential solution is to say that the various “races” are what we would consider separate species, and aren’t compatible breeding partners. Then if you do want any half-and-half races, you specify that they’re sterile crossbreeds like mules, hinnies, ligers, and tyons.



This is an explanation I use for settings where I want the mixed species to exist, but I want them to be relatively rare.


----------



## Bedrockgames

DND_Reborn said:


> You know, since we only used 2E as a hybrid with 1E, I never even noticed half-orc wasn't in 2E! To us, they never left...




I think a lot of groups did that. I remember someone playing a 1E monk in a 2E campaign back in the day.


----------



## James Gasik

Barbarians and Cavaliers were still allowed in a lot of games I played, even when everyone had bought all the 2e books and used them. Though I had one guy play a Cavalier subclass Paladin and immediately after I banned that version of the class.  I knew one guy who sweet talked the DM into letting him play a 1e Ranger.


----------



## DND_Reborn

James Gasik said:


> Barbarians and Cavaliers were still allowed in a lot of games I played, even when everyone had bought all the 2e books and used them. Though I had one guy play a Cavalier subclass Paladin and immediately after I banned that version of the class.  I knew one guy who sweet talked the DM into letting him play a 1e Ranger.



Yeah, I recall some times of confusion when one player used the 1E classes for such things but another used kits or whatever in 2E...

Of course, I remember even having two versions of Paladins in 1E, the Fighter-Version and the Cavalier-Version. The fighter-version got renamed "Holy Warrior" and the cavalier-version kept the name "Paladin:.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> This is an explanation I use for settings where I want the mixed species to exist, but I want them to be relatively rare.



Yeah, and given that half-elf and half-orc are categorized as Uncommon races in the PHB, I think that fits with the intent behind them at the beginning of 5e. I’m guessing thing that the concept of common vs. uncommon races is going the way of the racial ASI come 2024.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, and given that half-elf and half-orc are categorized as Uncommon races in the PHB, I think that fits with the intent behind them at the beginning of 5e. I’m guessing thing that the concept of common vs. uncommon races is going the way of the racial ASI come 2024.



Rarity is really a function of individual campaigns and doesn't really have a place in the PHB.

I'd still love to see an official human only campaign setting, or one with other specific available and unavailable PC races. Such a setting's mere existence would "prove" that no, not every setting has to be a kitchen sink and allow anthropomorphic koala bears.


----------



## MGibster

D&D can be a lot of things to a lot of people, but no game can be all things to all people.  In all the time I've spent playing D&D, the only time I had a gnome character was when I wanted to play a multi-class thief-illusionist.  It's been well over 30 years (by Helm, I'm old).  From my perspective, they could remove gnomes from the PHB and I would barely notice it.  Maybe replace it with something people actually play?  But this will make some people mad.  You're always going to make some people unhappy though.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DND_Reborn said:


> You know, since we only used 2E as a hybrid with 1E, I never even noticed half-orc wasn't in 2E! To us, they never left...
> 
> 
> They aren't though. The half-orc has half the features of the full orc and half the features of something else.
> 
> With 4 features for orc, for instance, there are 6 combinations of two features each (more if you include the weak duplicates option) for the orc-side of a half-orc alone, plus all the combinations of features for all the other races that could constitute the other half of the half-orc.
> 
> This makes the vast varieties of half-orc vastly different from orc--hardly "redundant".
> 
> Well, to reiterate:
> 
> 
> Cheers!



Yeah, in Level Up both orcs and humans have multiple traits to choose from (and you easier homebrew more).  So any way you slice it, there are many combinations that would all count as "half-orc".  Pick the one that feels right to you.


----------



## Mind of tempest

MGibster said:


> D&D can be a lot of things to a lot of people, but no game can be all things to all people.  In all the time I've spent playing D&D, the only time I had a gnome character was when I wanted to play a multi-class thief-illusionist.  It's been well over 30 years (by Helm, I'm old).  From my perspective, they could remove gnomes from the PHB and I would barely notice it.  Maybe replace it with something people actually play?  But this will make some people mad.  You're always going to make some people unhappy though.



honestly, gnomes are less annoying than halflings, it is impossible to fit halflings in a setting without them becoming something else in the process, they survive by being Tolkien, cottegecore and the busted lucky mechanic.


----------



## Blue Orange

FWIW, I'm of mixed heritage (sort of) and enjoyed seeing the half-options.

And of course, half-elves and half-orcs are called that among _humans_. Among elves, half-humans are known by a long, musical, beautiful array of vowels that translates to 'big hairy snub-eared people who die fast'. Among orcs, half-human is known by a short word, usually translated as 'smallteeth', but containing negative (but not entirely so) connotations of trickery, cleverness, cowardice, and weakness.

(I'd say in a lot of ways, elf : human :: human: orc, at least with the sort of standard fantasy portrayals.)


----------



## Reynard

What really probably needs to go away more than any specific species is monoculturalism.


----------



## Eltab

MGibster said:


> D&D can be a lot of things to a lot of people, but no game can be all things to all people.  In all the time I've spent playing D&D, the only time I had a gnome character was when I wanted to play a multi-class thief-illusionist.  It's been well over 30 years (by Helm, I'm old).  From my perspective, they could remove gnomes from the PHB and I would barely notice it.  Maybe replace it with something people actually play?  But this will make some people mad.  You're always going to make some people unhappy though.



i decided to create an Arcane Trickster / Trickery Cleric.  The only race that let me get a + modifier to all the relevant checks and spell saves was Gnome.  That is the only Gnome character I've ever played.  Nothing against Gnomes, just that my ideas for 'a fun character' run in other directions.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Eltab said:


> i decided to create an Arcane Trickster / Trickery Cleric.  The only race that let me get a + modifier to all the relevant checks and spell saves was Gnome.  That is the only Gnome character I've ever played.  Nothing against Gnomes, just that my ideas for 'a fun character' run in other directions.



what is your idea of a fun character then?


----------



## Reynard

Eltab said:


> i decided to create an Arcane Trickster / Trickery Cleric.  The only race that let me get a + modifier to all the relevant checks and spell saves was Gnome.  That is the only Gnome character I've ever played.  Nothing against Gnomes, just that my ideas for 'a fun character' run in other directions.



This is a good example of why floating ASIs are a net positive.


----------



## MGibster

Mind of tempest said:


> honestly, gnomes are less annoying than halflings, it is impossible to fit halflings in a setting without them becoming something else in the process, they survive by being Tolkien, cottegecore and the busted lucky mechanic.



I don't really find gnomes to be all that annoying.  In the group I run games for, I can usually count on seeing at least one gnome in the party (not always the same player), and I don't think I've ever found any of their characters annoying.  In fact, I can't think of a single time I've been annoyed by how someone played their gnome.  But in regards to halflings, you're right!  I never noticed it before, but every time I put them into my own setting they become something else.  Sometimes they even become goblins instead of halflings.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Regarding the OP:

What is necessary?  Good question.  I will not relitigate the race discussion beyond what is relevant here.

If we have floating ASIs, no real suite of racial abilities is needed.  If we also decouple standard cultures from races, this is doubly the case. 

The need for big tough guy remains…and can be created with any race.  This is triply the case if each race can be any size. 

From a mechanical or lore standpoint, no race is really required.  It would be more like life:  the big guy down the street, “Walter” is the big bruiser and that he is “human” has nothing to do with that “archetype.”

I like all of the lore and mechanics to support your the idea of strong outsider.  I might play him like one would expect or as a Paladin (I actually do like doing that).

For me, I would like the half orc to continue.  But it’s not necessary if all of Tasha’s optional rules are in play.

Matter of taste!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Regarding the OP:
> 
> What is necessary?  Good question.  I will not relitigate the race discussion beyond what is relevant here.
> 
> If we have floating ASIs, no real suite of racial abilities is needed.  If we also decouple standard cultures from races, this is doubly the case.
> 
> The need for big tough guy remains…and can be created with any race.  This is triply the case if each race can be any size.
> 
> From a mechanical or lore standpoint, no race is really required.  It would be more like life:  the big guy down the street, “Walter” is the big bruiser and that he is “human” has nothing to do with that “archetype.”
> 
> I like all of the lore and mechanics to support your the idea of strong outsider.  I might play him like one would expect or as a Paladin (I actually do like doing that).
> 
> For me, I would like the half orc to continue.  But it’s not necessary if all of Tasha’s optional rules are in play.
> 
> Matter of taste!



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


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Micah Sweet said:


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



Well then I don’t think anything is strictly necessary….


----------



## Micah Sweet

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Well then I don’t think anything is strictly necessary….



True.  I was just talking about what the company wants the game to be.  We certainly don't have to follow along with them.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Micah Sweet said:


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



Every rule is actually optional--I hope we all know that by now. There is tons of stuff in Tasha's that a lot of people won't use.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Micah Sweet said:


> True.  I was just talking about what the company wants the game to be.  We certainly don't have to follow along with them.



I have really enjoyed 5e…it and 1e have been my personal favorites.

So I am not just going along with all chaanges, nor is my group.

We play 5e with some 1e sensibilities and it works fine.  That said I will likely buy some 5.5 adventures but we are sticking with the core books and parts PARTS of Tasha’s.  And in the intro they did a good job saying take what you like—-your group decides!

I really appreciated that.  It’s a point by point thing.  I ask DM for permission or if I am DMing I tell people what is on the table.

If they hew to this, the game really is more modular than it’s given credit for—-considering feats and multiclassing.


----------



## Minigiant

ReallyI can see the harf-orc s being a shoe-in for the missing Thane Barbrarian.

I could see whole half orcen tribes of civilized but clannish folk of the wilds who withstand the dangers of the wilderness but still contain the human civil thought to think to the future.

Or they could go more civilized and be a sorta "Da Norf" of ASOIAF where half-orc are the Northmen and have a sense of brutality with nobility like House Stark or House Bolton.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Regarding the OP:
> 
> What is necessary?  Good question.  I will not relitigate the race discussion beyond what is relevant here.
> 
> If we have floating ASIs, no real suite of racial abilities is needed.  If we also decouple standard cultures from races, this is doubly the case.
> 
> The need for big tough guy remains…and can be created with any race.  This is triply the case if each race can be any size.
> 
> From a mechanical or lore standpoint, no race is really required.  It would be more like life:  the big guy down the street, “Walter” is the big bruiser and that he is “human” has nothing to do with that “archetype.”
> 
> I like all of the lore and mechanics to support your the idea of strong outsider.  I might play him like one would expect or as a Paladin (I actually do like doing that).
> 
> For me, I would like the half orc to continue.  But it’s not necessary if all of Tasha’s optional rules are in play.
> 
> Matter of taste!



At some point, the race mechanics become so disassociated from race that they're really just a point-buy background system with extra steps. And that has a huge upside: if it's all building blocks, you can make whatever you want. That's a good thing. Point-buy gives players the most flexibility possible while still having some sense of balance. There's a reason it used to be so popular and still is in certain crowds. 

But until you cross the line of "no races, only background features including heritage" you still need to pick which races are official and which are 'just homebrew it.' And any choice will have opposition.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Minigiant said:


> ReallyI can see the harf-orc s being a shoe-in for the missing Thane Barbrarian.
> 
> I could see whole half orcen tribes of civilized but clannish folk of the wilds who withstand the dangers of the wilderness but still contain the human civil thought to think to the future.
> 
> Or they could go more civilized and be a sorta "Da Norf" of ASOIAF where half-orc are the Northmen and have a sense of brutality with nobility like House Stark or House Bolton.



thane barbarian?
also, clannish folk who live in horrible places is kind of dwarven stuff?


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, in Level Up both orcs and humans have multiple traits to choose from (and you easier homebrew more).  So any way you slice it, there are many combinations that would all count as "half-orc".  Pick the one that feels right to you.



Plus it supports the idea that not every member of a "half-race" is going to be identical, which is nice.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


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



Did WotC send their goons to break into house and steal all of your books other than Tasha's?


----------



## Medic

Faolyn said:


> Did WotC send their goons to break into house and steal all of your books other than Tasha's?



It's hyperbolic. No, nobody is being coerced into using Tasha's on pain of death, but the book may as well be an "unofficial patch" that addresses common complaints about 5th Edition and a good deal of its contents will assuredly be folded into 5.5.

Anecdotally, when I banned it at my table because I didn't want to deal with more player-facing stuff, the overwhelming response was "But WHY, oh my GAWD, that's so LIMITING, UGH."


----------



## beancounter

Medic said:


> It's hyperbolic. No, nobody is being coerced into using Tasha's on pain of death, but the book may as well be an "unofficial patch" that addresses common complaints about 5th Edition and a good deal of its contents will assuredly be folded into 5.5.



I often wonder if the "common complaints" are truly common, or just a (relatively) few squeaky wheels on the Internet who have no long term interest in D&D.


----------



## beancounter

Medic said:


> It's hyperbolic. No, nobody is being coerced into using Tasha's on pain of death, but the book may as well be an "unofficial patch" that addresses common complaints about 5th Edition and a good deal of its contents will assuredly be folded into 5.5.
> 
> Anecdotally, when I banned it at my table because I didn't want to deal with more player-facing stuff, the overwhelming response was "But WHY, oh my GAWD, that's so LIMITING, UGH."




I love Tasha's for it's summoning spells, if nothing else.


----------



## Medic

beancounter said:


> I often wonder if the "common complaints" are truly common, or just a (relatively) few squeaky wheels on the Internet who have no long term interest in D&D.



We'll never know, will we? The demographic that likes things the way they are won't take to the internet to complain about it.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Medic said:


> We'll never know, will we? The demographic that likes things the way they are won't take to the internet to complain about it.



Oh but I do—-I just don’t have a problem with all of it.  I pick my fights.

Nevertheless, when you do this be ready to be called a hater and a boomer!  I kid I kid.  Mostly.


----------



## Chaosmancer

I tend to find myself agreeing with Defcon and some of the others. I love half-orcs (one of my favorite characters was from a campaign that died and was a half-orc samurai from a "loving" home. Only stress was his mother [the orc] thought that a man as strong as his father deserved a larger harem and kept trying to set him up with other women) but I've almost entirely written them out of my games. 

This happened back in 4e when I had a player who read the official lore and was very uncomfortable with the implied idea of a barbaric race of raiders leaving behind mix-race children. So, I've had "Half-orcs are just orcs" in my game for years now, even after me and that player parted ways. 

But I think the larger reason that I would see them reduced in their role in the game is that 

1) All "half" races are half human, and that's weird
2) There are not half-races for 99% of the possible combos (and I have had people ask about things like half-elf half-orc characters or half-gnomes or Tabaxi Genasi) 
3) Making unique races for even 30% of all combos would be such an unwieldy chore as to be insane, for very very little actual value. 

I could see them falling by the wayside, carried under the "custom lineage" just like a half-elf half-goblin is, with the players and DMs figuring out how they fit into the society and the story they want to tell. I do respect that people see them as representative, but I do wonder if making it more clear that these things can be handled as a custom lineage would help move those stories away from being told in respect to orc and elf societies, which... aren't necessarily super relevant to a lot of people, compared to some of the other options. 

For another example, what about a half-sea elf half Aarcrockra? That has some heavy implications, but I'd never expect to see such a race officially statted out.


----------



## grimslade

What do I think WotC will do vs, What would I like WotC to do? I do not work for WotC and am not a telepath so ...
5.5E will keep Half-Orcs and Half-Elves. They will probably head up a section on mixed-race characters and how to achieve them with lineages. More options, no deletions. Formerly monstrous races will be addressed in the Monster Manual, like Mordy's Multiverse. Orcs might make it into the PHB, but most likely not.
5.5 will be tweaks to rules, not new rules. Play up Half-orcs in Eberron and Wild Coast Greyhawk.


----------



## Faolyn

Medic said:


> It's hyperbolic. No, nobody is being coerced into using Tasha's on pain of death, but the book may as well be an "unofficial patch" that addresses common complaints about 5th Edition and a good deal of its contents will assuredly be folded into 5.5.
> 
> Anecdotally, when I banned it at my table because I didn't want to deal with more player-facing stuff, the overwhelming response was "But WHY, oh my GAWD, that's so LIMITING, UGH."



So, you're saying it's still 100% optional material then. You weren't forced to use it in your game.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Did WotC send their goons to break into house and steal all of your books other than Tasha's?



As I said, corporate intention.  We can do what we want, but over time the headwinds do seem to get stronger.


----------



## Mistwell

DND_Reborn said:


> No one said anything about devaluing them, and it seems enough people are bored with them that supporting the "weird ones" (as you call them) might be a good direction for WotC to explore?



There is no good evidence I am aware of that "enough people are bored with them". Do you have a link to some WOTC survey of players indicating that? Because I think this is much more of a deep-rules-focused internet message board phenomenon rather than a generalization about the D&D player base.


----------



## Staffan

MGibster said:


> I dislike that the most about a half anything race.  If we're at the point where they have their own distinct culture and viable population they're not half-anything they're their own thing.



Eh, you can still make a half-elf by having an elf and a human doing the dirty. It's just that there are enough half-elves that it's more common for a half-elf to have two half-elf parents.

Keith Baker fleshed things out a little more back when he was writing Dragonmark articles for the Wizards website. Nowadays they're only around on the Wayback Machine, unfortunately.


----------



## MGibster

Faolyn said:


> So, you're saying it's still 100% optional material then. You weren't forced to use it in your game.



When WotC releases official material, I think there's a lot of pressure on DMs to allow it in their games.  And to be fair to players, if they've spent $40+ on a book published by WotC, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to expect to be able to use it.  Nobody from WotC is going to kick down your door and cast Charm Person to get you to use their products though.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Mistwell said:


> There is no good evidence I am aware of that "enough people are bored with them". Do you have a link to some WOTC survey of players indicating that? Because I think this is much more of a deep-rules-focused internet message board phenomenon rather than a generalization about the D&D player base.



You could very well be correct.

I am going off of my own experience in the groups I play at and watch, plus things people have posted here and on other sites. Players *seem *(as I wrote before) more interested in exploring other half-race options than playing half-orcs and half-elves.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> As I said, corporate intention.  We can do what we want, but over time the headwinds do seem to get stronger.



So? Is your current material going away? 

I mean, there's groups that have never moved past 1st edition. They've either adapted current material to their own game rules or ignored it and made up their own stuff.



MGibster said:


> When WotC releases official material, I think there's a lot of pressure on DMs to allow it in their games.  And to be fair to players, if they've spent $40+ on a book published by WotC, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to expect to be able to use it.  Nobody from WotC is going to kick down your door and cast Charm Person to get you to use their products though.



I have shockingly felt zero pressure to adopt any new rules from any books I've bought. Mostly because I've _liked _a lot of the new rules, but there have been rules and lore that I've said "that's stupid" to and just ignore it and use older lore or lore from completely different systems or made stuff up.

Both of y'all, if you don't like the new material, don't use it. If your players won't play without it, either use the rules or get new players. You'll have to determine what's more important to you, though. But does it _actually matter_ what the new rules say? If you're running a game and a player says "I want to play _X_," where X involves a rule you personally dislike, is it _really _going to diminish the experience of the game for you? Would it honestly be less fun for you if, I dunno, players who aren't you put their ASIs where they want or do things PB times per day rather than 1/short rest?


----------



## MGibster

Faolyn said:


> I have shockingly felt zero pressure to adopt any new rules from any books I've bought. Mostly because I've _liked _a lot of the new rules, but there have been rules and lore that I've said "that's stupid" to and just ignore it and use older lore or lore from completely different systems or made stuff up.



Like Whitney Houston sings, you're not every woman.  Just because _you _feel no pressure it doesn't follow that others experience the same thing.  



Faolyn said:


> Both of y'all, if you don't like the new material, don't use it. If your players won't play without it, either use the rules or get new players. You'll have to determine what's more important to you, though. But does it _actually matter_ what the new rules say? If you're running a game and a player says "I want to play _X_," where X involves a rule you personally dislike, is it _really _going to diminish the experience of the game for you?



So you're acknowledging that there might be some pressure to use WotC's rules?


----------



## Reynard

Mistwell said:


> There is no good evidence I am aware of that "enough people are bored with them". Do you have a link to some WOTC survey of players indicating that? Because I think this is much more of a deep-rules-focused internet message board phenomenon rather than a generalization about the D&D player base.



I don't know if there is a way to access the information, but it seems that characters created for DND Beyond and/or Adventurers League would tell us something,  if not the whole story. I seem to recall some front page articles drawing on that information here a while back.

Anyway,  even if we can't access that information,  WotC can and it's very likely to impact choices going forward.


----------



## Mistwell

DND_Reborn said:


> You could very well be correct.
> 
> I am going off of my own experience in the groups I play at and watch, plus things people have posted here and on other sites. Players *seem *(as I wrote before) more interested in exploring other half-race options than playing half-orcs and half-elves.



This is the last hard data I've seen, and it shows both half-orcs and half-elves are doing fine:








For what it's worth, a couple years before that, Half-elf was the third most popular racial choice.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

DND_Reborn said:


> You could very well be correct.
> 
> I am going off of my own experience in the groups I play at and watch, plus things people have posted here and on other sites. Players *seem *(as I wrote before) more interested in exploring other half-race options than playing half-orcs and half-elves.



Listen—-I get it.  I have more traditional D&D leanings and agree with a lot of


Micah Sweet said:


> As I said, corporate intention.  We can do what we want, but over time the headwinds do seem to get stronger.





DND_Reborn said:


> You could very well be correct.
> 
> I am going off of my own experience in the groups I play at and watch, plus things people have posted here and on other sites. Players *seem *(as I wrote before) more interested in exploring other half-race options than playing half-orcs and half-elves.



Listen—-I get it.  I have more traditional D&D leanings.

However, I have learned to live in the gaming now.  I think 5e as is—-worth the OtIONS is great.

Where they take it I don’t know but am not optimistic about some things. Yet  I feel like my group is hitting another Renaissance with D&D.  Our kids are big enough to do their own thing or preferably…join us!

We played 1e all through 2e and I have not regrets.  3.0 essentially to 5e:

Don’t let tomorrow ruin your today.  Get your buds and play what ya like for as long as ya like!  I never say never.  While we played 1e the DM likes the monstrous compendium and some other resources.  We just folded it right in…with Devils and Demons (yeah the old fashioned kind!) and had a blast.

I suspect we will do
It again.  We like 5e.  I bet 5.5 will have some cool ass stuff we use with 5.0.  Heck we used to go
To Gen con and get in 1e events long
I to 2e!  You’re not alone and can keep your sort of game quite alive.  I have worked to not let unwanted change to bring me down and how the same for others.

Just a little pep talk…the game will live
And do OK.  Just remember we only have to be current with what we want to be current with


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> Rarity is really a function of individual campaigns and doesn't really have a place in the PHB.



Well, yeah, that decision was obviously made to imply that the “core 4” races we’re somehow privileged above the others to appeal to the old-school crowd. I’m just saying in the setting that decision implies, it would make sense for horks, omans, hulves, and elmans to be sterile.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> Well, yeah, that decision was obviously made to imply that the “core 4” races we’re somehow privileged above the others to appeal to the old-school crowd. I’m just saying in the setting that decision implies, it would make sense for horks, omans, hulves, and elmans to be sterile.



And if you want that "an outcast between two words" vibe, it works a lot better if such mixed species individuals are rare. If they have their own communities and most half-somethings have parents who are also half-somethings then it doesn't quite work.


----------



## Charlaquin

I actually created a random race table meant to reproduce the assumptions of race rarity in the PHB, if anyone has any interest in such a thing. Might at least be useful for the reincarnation spell if nothing else.


1d12+1d4Race2Gnome (forest)3Dragonborn4Half-elf5Elf (wood)6Elf (high)7Halfling (lightfoot)8-10Human11Halfling (stout)12Dwarf (hill)13Dwarf (mountain)14Half-orc15Tiefling16Gnome (rock)

This method gives about a 25% chance of a human, a 16.66% chance of an elf, dwarf, or halfling, a 6.25% chance of a half-elf or half-orc, and a 4.17% chance of a dragonborn, gnome, or Tiefling. In other words, humans are 1.5x more common than the other common races, which are all equally common, and likewise the half-human races are 1.5x more common than the other Uncommon races, which are all equally common at about 1/4 the frequency of the common races.


----------



## Faolyn

MGibster said:


> Like Whitney Houston sings, you're not every woman.  Just because _you _feel no pressure it doesn't follow that others experience the same thing.



And likewise, even though some people feel pressure it doesn't follow that others are as well.



MGibster said:


> So you're acknowledging that there might be some pressure to use WotC's rules?



From WotC? No. From players who like rules other than what the DM wants? Sure, but you'll get that no matter what.


----------



## MGibster

Faolyn said:


> From WotC? No. From players who like rules other than what the DM wants? Sure, but you'll get that no matter what.



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.


----------



## Minigiant

Mind of tempest said:


> thane barbarian?



It;s the Barbarian Chief and Barbarian King archtype. The Barbarian who is a Face and has support abilities.



Mind of tempest said:


> also, clannish folk who live in horrible places is kind of dwarven stuff?



Dwarves are isolationist and conservative.

Half Orcs would be the ones who openly create relations and adopt new trends and technology due to their human ambition and curiosity.


----------



## Stormonu

Mind of tempest said:


> I take it you a big bruiser player then?



Sometimes, dwarf, goliath, half-orc and dragonborn are high on the list of races I like and paladin is my favorite class.

However, my fondest half-orc character was Savage Avenger, a 1E fighter/assassin who was more sneaky than brawny.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Stormonu said:


> Sometimes, dwarf, goliath, half-orc and dragonborn are high on the list of races I like and paladin is my favorite class.
> 
> However, my fondest half-orc character was Savage Avenger, a 1E fighter/assassin who was more sneaky than brawny.



I can't fault a man for knowing what he like, especially given I do not.


----------



## JEB

Reynard said:


> I'd still love to see an official human only campaign setting, or one with other specific available and unavailable PC races. Such a setting's mere existence would "prove" that no, not every setting has to be a kitchen sink and allow anthropomorphic koala bears.



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.


----------



## Reynard

JEB said:


> 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

Reynard said:


> 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

MGibster said:


> 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

Oofta said:


> 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

Micah Sweet said:


> 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

James Gasik said:


> 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

doctorbadwolf said:


> 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

Micah Sweet said:


> 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

Faolyn said:


> 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.


----------



## Faolyn

MGibster said:


> 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.



You're assuming that there's "special" pressure to use Tasha's or whatever rules exist.

There isn't. Just the standard amount you get when players find something shiny and new. If your players find a new archetype from a third party source that they want to play, do you consider _that _to be pressure? Are your players like really toxic about forcing you to acquiesce to their demands or something?

There is absolutely nothing forcing you to use any particular rules at your table. You are free to allow Tasha's or disallow it. You are free to allow the races in MMotM or disallow it. If you don't like the way you think 5e is heading, you are free to come up with your own house rules, play any other edition of D&D, or move to Level Up, Pathfinder, or any other of the thousands of other RPGs out there.

Literally _all _the rules are optional. Even if 6e comes out and the Tasha's rule is the norm--which I hope not; I love floating ASIs but I find the way they did the customizable lineages to be incredibly boring--you can still say "nope, sorry, in my game, you use _these _rules" and hand them binder or house rules.

Don't be surprised if not everyone _likes _that and wants to play with you as DM--unless you consider _that _to be "pressure."

Seriously, I have to wonder if people put up this much of a fuss when suddenly non-humans didn't have level limits and could join classes that were previously forbidden to them. Dwarf wizards and half-orc paladins! I'd consider that to be a _much _more radical change than letting you stick a +2 in a different stat, or even the build-your-own-race thing, since opening up all classes to all races truly broke down what it meant to be a member of a race.


----------



## Faolyn

James Gasik said:


> 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?



Probably because nobody bothered to stat them out, rather than any grand plan on anyone's part.


----------



## Charlaquin

JEB said:


> 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.)



Also worth noting that MTG’s merfolk are basically Tritons.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> 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.



I don’t think that the existence of half-orcs _necessarily_ means humans and orcs have to be related species; ditto for half-elves (and in fact elves’ fae ancestry would seem to suggest they are not related to humans at all). However, if they aren’t related, it does raise the question of why there are half-human-half-orcs (and half-human-half-elves) but not other half-and-half combinations.

There are basically two solutions to this: either there _are_ other half-and-half combinations, in which case there should be some way to make PC stats for them, or there’s something special about humans, orcs, and elves that makes them more sexually compatible than other races. The related species thing is simply one possible answer to this. Another is the size difference thing I jokingly brought up earlier in the thread.

I think the custom lineage option from Tasha’s does present a handy way to make your own half-dwarf-half-dragonborn or whatever.


----------



## MGibster

Faolyn said:


> You're assuming that there's "special" pressure to use Tasha's or whatever rules exist.



I don't know where you got that impression from.  I originally mentioned that there's pressure to allow players to use officially published material from WotC.  I guess that's special in a way.  



Faolyn said:


> There isn't. Just the standard amount you get when players find something shiny and new. If your players find a new archetype from a third party source that they want to play, do you consider _that _to be pressure? Are your players like really toxic about forcing you to acquiesce to their demands or something?



Yes it's pressure.  Though significantly less because I couldn't care less about third party publishers and feel no need to consider adding any of their material to the game.  Nor do I see this as a player toxicity issue.  



Faolyn said:


> There is absolutely nothing forcing you to use any particular rules at your table. You are free to allow Tasha's or disallow it. You are free to allow the races in MMotM or disallow it. If you don't like the way you think 5e is heading, you are free to come up with your own house rules, play any other edition of D&D, or move to Level Up, Pathfinder, or any other of the thousands of other RPGs out there.



Nobody said anything about force.  And yes, I'm well aware that I'm "free" to do whatever I want.  



Faolyn said:


> Literally _all _the rules are optional. Even if 6e comes out and the Tasha's rule is the norm--which I hope not; I love floating ASIs but I find the way they did the customizable lineages to be incredibly boring--you can still say "nope, sorry, in my game, you use _these _rules" and hand them binder or house rules.



Saying literally all the rules are optional is technically true but not very useful.  One of the reasons D&D is so popular is that it offers a common set of rules.  I can sit down with almost anyone else in the United States for a game of D&D and we're all going to be pretty close to the same page.  Sure, I can say "nope, sorry, in my game we use these rules," but I'm not going to.  Rarely do I deviate from the standard rules in any game I run.  



Faolyn said:


> Seriously, I have to wonder if people put up this much of a fuss when suddenly non-humans didn't have level limits and could join classes that were previously forbidden to them.



In my experience, most people ignored level limits in 1st edition.  I don't even remember if they had level limits in 2nd.


----------



## JEB

MGibster said:


> I don't even remember if they had level limits in 2nd.



Yep, they did. Slightly more generous than 1E, but they did.


----------



## Faolyn

MGibster said:


> I don't know where you got that impression from.  I originally mentioned that there's pressure to allow players to use officially published material from WotC.  I guess that's special in a way.



You consider it to be pressure. Why do you feel pressured to include the material, instead of just saying that you won't?



MGibster said:


> Yes it's pressure.  Though significantly less because I couldn't care less about third party publishers and feel no need to consider adding any of their material to the game.  Nor do I see this as a player toxicity issue.



You have a very different definition of "pressure" than I do, if having a player say "hey, I want to play such-and-such" puts pressure on you.



MGibster said:


> Nobody said anything about force.  And yes, I'm well aware that I'm "free" to do whatever I want.
> 
> 
> Saying literally all the rules are optional is technically true but not very useful.  One of the reasons D&D is so popular is that it offers a common set of rules.  I can sit down with almost anyone else in the United States for a game of D&D and we're all going to be pretty close to the same page.  Sure, I can say "nope, sorry, in my game we use these rules," but I'm not going to.  Rarely do I deviate from the standard rules in any game I run.



It's actually incredibly useful. Because it allows you to say "I don't like this rule so I changed it." 

Are you saying "everyone else does it so I have to as well?"

If I sat down at a stranger's table, I would expect different house rules and a different set of expectations than what happens in my game. I wouldn't be surprised if a strange DM said that they had different rules.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think that the existence of half-orcs _necessarily_ means humans and orcs have to be related species; ditto for half-elves (and in fact elves’ fae ancestry would seem to suggest they are not related to humans at all). However, if they aren’t related, it does raise the question of why there are half-human-half-orcs (and half-human-half-elves) but not other half-and-half combinations.
> 
> There are basically two solutions to this: either there _are_ other half-and-half combinations, in which case there should be some way to make PC stats for them, or there’s something special about humans, orcs, and elves that makes them more sexually compatible than other races. The related species thing is simply one possible answer to this. Another is the size difference thing I jokingly brought up earlier in the thread.
> 
> I think the custom lineage option from Tasha’s does present a handy way to make your own half-dwarf-half-dragonborn or whatever.




One explanation that I've kind of liked is that there is nothing special at all about orcs and elves. 

It is humans that are special. 

This was based off a meme post I read years ago, Wish I could find the original, but it went something like 

Human and a fantasy race person were talking, and the subject of humans being weirdly attracted to like... everything came up. 
Human denies. 

"Half-elves, half-orcs, half-dwarves, half-dragons..." 
"Okay, but-"
"Centuars, Satyrs, Mermaids, Naga..."
"You've made your-"
"Half-Golems." 


And I've always liked the idea that there is some truth in that. There is precedent in dragons, so why not have humans just be capable of having off-spring with just about anything. I find it an amusing conceit.


----------



## Charlaquin

Chaosmancer said:


> One explanation that I've kind of liked is that there is nothing special at all about orcs and elves.
> 
> It is humans that are special.
> 
> This was based off a meme post I read years ago, Wish I could find the original, but it went something like
> 
> Human and a fantasy race person were talking, and the subject of humans being weirdly attracted to like... everything came up.
> Human denies.
> 
> "Half-elves, half-orcs, half-dwarves, half-dragons..."
> "Okay, but-"
> "Centuars, Satyrs, Mermaids, Naga..."
> "You've made your-"
> "Half-Golems."
> 
> 
> And I've always liked the idea that there is some truth in that. There is precedent in dragons, so why not have humans just be capable of having off-spring with just about anything. I find it an amusing conceit.



Yeah, I’ve heard similar and I rather like it. Fits in with humans’ shtick being that they’re adaptable too, which I appreciate. But it does still make for a conspicuous lack of half-whatevers. Half-gnomes, half-goblins, half-halflings (quarterlings?)

I suppose you could adapt existing races. Halflings are half-human-half-dwarf, Hobgoblins are half-human-half-goblin, etc.


----------



## MGibster

Faolyn said:


> You consider it to be pressure. Why do you feel pressured to include the material, instead of just saying that you won't?



Because a game is a shared experience and my needs and desires aren't the only ones I consider, I'm more of a consensus builder than I am a "my way or the highway" type, and and I empathize with players whom I feel have a reasonable expectation that they're able to use official products they've purchased.  



Faolyn said:


> You have a very different definition of "pressure" than I do, if having a player say "hey, I want to play such-and-such" puts pressure on you.



More specifically, it's a form of peer pressure.  I'm not arguing that it's nefarious or anything, but it is pressure.  



Faolyn said:


> f I sat down at a stranger's table, I would expect different house rules and a different set of expectations than what happens in my game. I wouldn't be surprised if a strange DM said that they had different rules.



In my experience, when I sit down to play D&D with a bunch of strangers we're largely in agreement on how the rules work.  There might be some rules interpretations and houserules I'm unaccustomed to, but they've always been minor.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Stout Halflings are implied to be part Dwarven, and I see that still stands in 5e. There was a Halfling subrace called Tallfellow which were implied to be part Elven.


----------



## Yaarel

Professor Murder said:


> _Preface: The larger issue of "race" in DnD and how it is changing and will be presented differently in 5+ed is it's own topic. The issue of "mixed race" and how it is presented, such as the half-elf, half-orc, and those of more extended lineage, such as Aasimar and Tieflings is it's own topic. That said, I fully expect this to eventually devolve into just arguments about those issues along a long enough timeline._
> 
> Premise: Given the "softening" of Orcs in the mainline documents and likely continued efforts to remove the idea that any given race of playable peoples in DnD are inherently evil_, _does it make sense to have Half Orcs as a playable option in the next iteration of the PHB? Should instead players just get rules for playing Orcs outright in the PHB?
> 
> Thoughts?



The half-orc and the half-elf are no longer useful race concepts.

However, there needs to be rules for representing the offspring of any two races, such as drow and rockgnome, and so on.

In this case, the human-orc and the human-elf can be readymade examples for how to use the new rules.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think that the existence of half-orcs _necessarily_ means humans and orcs have to be related species; ditto for half-elves (and in fact elves’ fae ancestry would seem to suggest they are not related to humans at all). However, if they aren’t related, it does raise the question of why there are half-human-half-orcs (and half-human-half-elves) but not other half-and-half combinations.




The real answer of course is that half-orcs and elves were created long ago in a century far, far away because Tolkien decided they could mix. Half elves apparently were also a thing in Nordic lore.  Tolkien did have half-goblins but his goblins were really just orcs.



Charlaquin said:


> There are basically two solutions to this: either there _are_ other half-and-half combinations, in which case there should be some way to make PC stats for them, or there’s something special about humans, orcs, and elves that makes them more sexually compatible than other races. The related species thing is simply one possible answer to this. Another is the size difference thing I jokingly brought up earlier in the thread.
> 
> I think the custom lineage option from Tasha’s does present a handy way to make your own half-dwarf-half-dragonborn or whatever.



It's easy enough to justify if you want, it's magic. Magic doesn't have to apply equally to all races.  For elves it's because their adaptable, for orcs it's to spread influence.  Dwarves are are perfect the way they are (unless you're in Athas of course), half halflings would just be confusing.  Half gnomes?  The less people know about gnomish mating rituals the better.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

In Tolkien's lore orcs were corrupted elves. It's implied that Tolkien's half orcs are humans corrupted by Saruman in imitation of Sauron. Trolls are corrupted ents.


----------



## Alzrius

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think that the existence of half-orcs _necessarily_ means humans and orcs have to be related species; ditto for half-elves (and in fact elves’ fae ancestry would seem to suggest they are not related to humans at all). However, if they aren’t related, it does raise the question of why there are half-human-half-orcs (and half-human-half-elves) but not other half-and-half combinations.



I'm guessing it's because ring species are a thing (and that's not a Tolkien joke, ironically enough).


----------



## Vaalingrade

So we had a discussion and came up with the idea that orcs are probably largely vegetarian.

Those big, strong manly jaws are usually a sign of something built for bite force suitable for crushing grains and nuts and probably housing powerful, coarse plant grinding molars similar to those of real life Swole Humanoid, P.Bosei. 

This is even supported by some world building as whenever orcs aren't just rank and file things to kill, they are usually farmers without seeming to perform animal husbandry.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Vaalingrade said:


> So we had a discussion and came up with the idea that orcs are probably largely vegetarian.
> 
> Those big, strong manly jaws are usually a sign of something built for bite force suitable for crushing grains and nuts and probably housing powerful, coarse plant grinding molars similar to those of real life Swole Humanoid, P.Bosei.
> 
> This is even supported by some world building as whenever orcs aren't just rank and file things to kill, they are usually farmers without seeming to perform animal husbandry.



I like this. I my head cannon elves are big meat eaters. They really don't do agriculture as we do but more forestry management. They remove trees to ensure there is good grazing on the forest floor for animals they hunt and that nut/berry bearing bushes can thrive.


----------



## Bill Zebub

vincegetorix said:


> but at the actual table when facing the hordes of the Underdark, your character genetics should not be the main focus of the rules.




QFT.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> So we had a discussion and came up with the idea that orcs are probably largely vegetarian.
> 
> Those big, strong manly jaws are usually a sign of something built for bite force suitable for crushing grains and nuts and probably housing powerful, coarse plant grinding molars similar to those of real life Swole Humanoid, P.Bosei.
> 
> This is even supported by some world building as whenever orcs aren't just rank and file things to kill, they are usually farmers without seeming to perform animal husbandry.




Definitely this.

We're talking CR 8, sentient plants, though.  Right?


----------



## MGibster

Vaalingrade said:


> Those big, strong manly jaws are usually a sign of something built for bite force suitable for crushing grains and nuts and probably housing powerful, coarse plant grinding molars similar to those of real life Swole Humanoid, P.Bosei.



They look pretty good at cracking bones to get to the sweet, sweet marrow.  But orc herbivores sounds hilarious so I'm going to go with that.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Vaalingrade said:


> So we had a discussion and came up with the idea that orcs are probably largely vegetarian.
> 
> Those big, strong manly jaws are usually a sign of something built for bite force suitable for crushing grains and nuts and probably housing powerful, coarse plant grinding molars similar to those of real life Swole Humanoid, P.Bosei.
> 
> This is even supported by some world building as whenever orcs aren't just rank and file things to kill, they are usually farmers without seeming to perform animal husbandry.




I think this was almost the exact idea used by Dominic Deegan, Oracle for Hire. Excellent series, good world-building, and I always enjoyed that take on orcs. Because I can't think of a single carnivorous animal that has tusks (pigs and walruses are omnivores)


----------



## FrozenNorth

bedir than said:


> My friends that are clearly both part of, and ignored by, both 'races' of their parents absolutely love the half-orc. It helps them feel like themselves, with a foot in both worlds. Telling such a person that they're really just an orc doesn't enable their story - it ends it.



This.  Multiple times over.


----------



## FrozenNorth

As several posters have indicated, no races are really _needed_.  So the question becomes, why remove them?

If the issue is simply space, remove Stoutheart halflings (what’s the difference with Lightfoots again?), Mountain Dwarves (same) and 3 subraces of elves first.

Rather ironically, forest gnomes and rock gnomes are sufficiently different that you could probably keep both.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Vaalingrade said:


> So we had a discussion and came up with the idea that orcs are probably largely vegetarian.
> 
> Those big, strong manly jaws are usually a sign of something built for bite force suitable for crushing grains and nuts and probably housing powerful, coarse plant grinding molars similar to those of real life Swole Humanoid, P.Bosei.
> 
> This is even supported by some world building as whenever orcs aren't just rank and file things to kill, they are usually farmers without seeming to perform animal husbandry.



given they used to look like pigs this would make too much sense, they might have a socal structure far more similar to gorillas mixed with boars.


UngainlyTitan said:


> I like this. I my head cannon elves are big meat eaters. They really don't do agriculture as we do but more forestry management. They remove trees to ensure there is good grazing on the forest floor for animals they hunt and that nut/berry bearing bushes can thrive.



what is the probability those elves are not just the preditor but bless much better in the look department?


MGibster said:


> They look pretty good at cracking bones to get to the sweet, sweet marrow.  But orc herbivores sounds hilarious so I'm going to go with that.



tusk are not really needed for getting to marrow if you have hands, more likely some strange fighting or mating thing like the bird with the eye tails.


----------



## Vaalingrade

UngainlyTitan said:


> I like this. I my head cannon elves are big meat eaters. They really don't do agriculture as we do but more forestry management. They remove trees to ensure there is good grazing on the forest floor for animals they hunt and that nut/berry bearing bushes can thrive.



I do the same, only they're clearly evolved from arboreal predators in my world. Due to being climbers and brachiators, elves also develop the classic superhero V shape too. And because they live in fruit-bearing trees, they've come to develop a cuisine full of meat in sweet sauces. 


Bill Zebub said:


> Definitely this.
> 
> We're talking CR 8, sentient plants, though.  Right?



Those too.

I've got plants that launch their seeds as bullets, flowers they poison you for walking on them, then send roots up into you when you collapse, and also eucalyptus trees, which are dangerous enough already. 

All good eating with mama orc's secret walnut catsup*.

*was a real thing. Tomato ketchup is the new, weird version of a very old sauce.


----------



## James Gasik

Vaalingrade said:


> So we had a discussion and came up with the idea that orcs are probably largely vegetarian.
> 
> Those big, strong manly jaws are usually a sign of something built for bite force suitable for crushing grains and nuts and probably housing powerful, coarse plant grinding molars similar to those of real life Swole Humanoid, P.Bosei.
> 
> This is even supported by some world building as whenever orcs aren't just rank and file things to kill, they are usually farmers without seeming to perform animal husbandry.



There are peaceful Orcs in the Forgotten Realms who are just that, farmers, and no different than any other rural country folk.


----------



## Vaalingrade

MGibster said:


> They look pretty good at cracking bones to get to the sweet, sweet marrow.  But orc herbivores sounds hilarious so I'm going to go with that.



Going off bone-crushing dogs and hyenas, they would need a longer snout for leverage.

Granted, no tool-user needs to be a bone crusher, as boiling bones gets marrow more efficiently.

On a related note, I miss the little dude in a grad cap with a pointer smilie that was on the old WotC boards.


----------



## Reynard

FrozenNorth said:


> As several posters have indicated, no races are really _needed_.  So the question becomes, why remove them?
> 
> If the issue is simply space, remove Stoutheart halflings (what’s the difference with Lightfoots again?), Mountain Dwarves (same) and 3 subraces of elves first.
> 
> Rather ironically, forest gnomes and rock gnomes are sufficiently different that you could probably keep both.



Looks like _someone_ has been paid for by Big Gnome...


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

UngainlyTitan said:


> I like this. I my head cannon elves are big meat eaters. They really don't do agriculture as we do but more forestry management. They remove trees to ensure there is good grazing on the forest floor for animals they hunt and that nut/berry bearing bushes can thrive.




In my homebrew world, elves are creatures of elemental wood. They produce their food through photosynthesis, eating meat for nutrients because they aren't rooted.


----------



## Eltab

Mind of tempest said:


> more likely some strange fighting or mating thing like the bird with the eye tails.



Peacocks / peahens?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Mind of tempest said:


> what is the probability those elves are not just the preditor but bless much better in the look department?



What? I do not get what you are saying here?


----------



## Mind of tempest

UngainlyTitan said:


> What? I do not get what you are saying here?



that they are like the predator but good looking you know this thing


----------



## Mind of tempest

Eltab said:


> Peacocks / peahens?



that is the bird bird


----------

