# does anyone else think half-orcs get gypped?



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 27, 2006)

i mean, compared to the other races, they seem underpowered to me.  their ability scores even out, and the only perk they get is darkvision.  i'm thinking about giving them the scent ability in my next campaign.  would this unbalance the race to the point of LA?


----------



## Thermmese (Dec 27, 2006)

*orc gyped i don't think so*

they often speak orc and are considered orc blood.

that's what half-orcs are.  They aren't Uruk-kai !


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 27, 2006)

No, I don't think they got gypped, but it wouldn't hurt to give them a few more perks.  I wouldn't give them scent, but perhaps +1 to Spot and Listen and +2 to Survival checks, to reflect their feral natures (or something).


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 27, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> No, I don't think they got gypped, but it wouldn't hurt to give them a few more perks.  I wouldn't give them scent, but perhaps +1 to Spot and Listen and +2 to Survival checks, to reflect their feral natures (or something).



so scent is over the top?  i don't think it would apply in as many situations as spot, listen, or survival... and i know they're just half-orcs, but in my campaigns, there are no such things as half-orcs.  just regular old orcs with the stats and abilities of half-orcs.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Dec 27, 2006)

Yes, they're definately too weak as a race. They should get a +2 Con to balance out their attribute deficiencies, and a few skill bonuses to help them be on par with other races (just look at what Dwarves get, for example, how can anyone say Half-Orcs are balanced?). I'd suggest giving them a +2 Intimidate and Survival, for starters.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 27, 2006)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Yes, they're definately too weak as a race. They should get a +2 Con to balance out their attribute deficiencies, and a few skill bonuses to help them be on par with other races (just look at what Dwarves get, for example, how can anyone say Half-Orcs are balanced?). I'd suggest giving them a +2 Intimidate and Survival, for starters.



i don't really think they're unbalanced as far as ability scores go... the DMG says that a -2 penalty to two mental stats is equal to a +2 bonus to a physical stat (i.e. -2 CHA, -2 INT, +2 STR).  the bonus to intimidate and survival is not a bad idea, though.  it makes sense.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 27, 2006)

I had the same opinion since 2004. That became this article, with two half-orc variants (half-human orcs and half-orc humans):

http://www.fierydragon.com/db/2004-05-27.htm



> Orc Blood!?
> 
> by Claudio Pozas
> 
> ...


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 27, 2006)

Yes, half-orcs got the shaft -- _especially_ when compared w/ dwarves. Dwarves make better barbarians than half-orcs do -- that just doesn't make sense.

I generally just drop the INT penalty, myself.

-The Gneech


----------



## smootrk (Dec 27, 2006)

Half Orcs seem to be somewhat lacking.  I believe that it was a conscious (or possibly unconscious) decision to penalize the 'ugly' or 'evil' race just a little bit more over the 'goodly' or traditional races, to help encourage players to choose the more iconic and goodly types.  It is the whole 'evil is ugly/stupid/undesirable' mentality.  

But honestly, the choices for ability score adjustments for all the races were arbitrary decisions centered on the concept of balance over any other consideration.
Dwarves: Con is fine, but why Cha?  They can't be great commanders?
Elves:  No Int bonus?!? or even a Cha bonus!?! I thought these were supposed to be the Wizards/Sorcerers supremes/
Gnomes:  Con bonus?  for what?  arbitrary for sure.  Bard preferred class?  that came out of nowhere.
Heck, even Orcs used to be Lawful Evil with their deities battling on Acheron against goblins.... guess they needed a race inserted into another balancing slot (chaotic to support the barbarian class).

Just edit your races as desired (with a little concern for balance, or at least the consideration of changing the Level Adjustment to fit your edits).  The results can't be any worse than the changes/decisions that were made previously.


----------



## Christian (Dec 27, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> i don't really think they're unbalanced as far as ability scores go... the DMG says that a -2 penalty to two mental stats is equal to a +2 bonus to a physical stat (i.e. -2 CHA, -2 INT, +2 STR).




Right. Which is why, to balance their +2 Con, dwarves get a -2 Cha and ... Oh, wait, never mind.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 27, 2006)

Christian said:
			
		

> Right. Which is why, to balance their +2 Con, dwarves get a -2 Cha and ... Oh, wait, never mind.



yeah, dwarves deserve an LA.  i'm not even going to try to argue the point that they're balanced.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 27, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Yes, half-orcs got the shaft -- _especially_ when compared w/ dwarves. Dwarves make better barbarians than half-orcs do -- that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> I generally just drop the INT penalty, myself.
> 
> -The Gneech



 I dropped the Wis penalty (which fits better for me, esp. in my Eberron game, where orcs have a strong druidic tradition) and gave them a +2 racial bonus to intimidate. That made them a decently playable race.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 27, 2006)

Do you know what the word Gypped means?

Way to bash the Roma people....


----------



## satori01 (Dec 27, 2006)

Half-Orcs have a long history of being the red headed step child in D&D.  In first edition where a half orc received bonuses to STR and CON, racial ability score caps limited Half Orc dex to around 14.

Luckily no one really enforced demihuman ability score maximums, but the half orc really took a hit there.

I give half Orcs a Con bonus and weapon familiarity with the Orchish Double Axe.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 27, 2006)

I think that half-orcs are just fine when you compare them to, say, humans and elves, and much better than half-elves.  But they suck compared to dwarves, which is the race that they are most often compared to (because both races are the most melee/fighter/tank friendly races).  I believe that this is a problem due to the fact that dwarves are hideously overpowered for a LA+0 race, not the fact that half-orcs are underpowered.

I view most modifications to the half-orc race as a result of this to be prime examples of power creep.


----------



## green slime (Dec 27, 2006)

No one who has seen a raging half-orc Barbarian smash proteins, amino acids, and bone fragments bits into a sticky paste would call them gypped to their faces.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 27, 2006)

ok, first off... shilsen, half-orcs don't take a hit to WIS, just INT and CHA (which makes sense, especially if you sneak in an Intimidate bonus for them).

second, yes, i'm familiar with the origin of the word "gyp."  it's a colloquialism.  don't get all red in the face over it.    i'm pretty sure it's passed the point where the term is really associated with Roma.  also, the word "gypsy" applies to groups other than the Roma, so they're not the only ones who should be getting offended over it.

and third, yeah, a raging orc barbarian is a terrible enemy, but not so much moreso than, say, a raging dwarf barbarian.  the STR bonus is nice, but it doesn't compensate for the lack of other perks.  frankly, i don't think half-orcs are the only race getting, um... short-changed.  i tend to hand out extra racial bonuses to other underpowered races as well.  power-creeping it may be, but you've got to give them something to even out with dwarves.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 27, 2006)

Which character generation method do you use? With 25 point buy, half-orcs will generally be the only ones with 18 str which makes a huge difference. 

With higher ability scores, houserules for the poor half-orc babies should be considered. E.g. let them take Rage (1/5 levels) as feat. 

Dwarves: Give them Dex -2 instead of Cha -2.


----------



## szilard (Dec 27, 2006)

The "orc blood" thing is more of a detriment than anything else in most cases - they're susceptible to orc-bane weapons, the dwarven bonus vs. orcs and things of that sort. The places where 'counting as an orc' is a benefit are few and far between. Instead of Orc Blood as a racial trait, how about:

Dual Bloodlines: For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered either an orc or a human, whichever is more beneficial to him in the circumstances.


-Stuart


----------



## nittanytbone (Dec 27, 2006)

Half-orcs make great barbarians.  +2 to strength is pretty big for an offensive melee type, especially if you use point buy.  Remember, strength helps to-hit, damage, carrying capacity (which is important if you want to stay at light encumbrance and thus move quickly...), and all sorts of other mobility related skills.

Dwarves make good tanks.  Yes, they have lots of resistances, but their slow speed and lower damage output prevent them from being the offensive machines half-orcs are.

Everything seems fine to me.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 27, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> i tend to hand out extra racial bonuses to other underpowered races as well.  power-creeping it may be, but you've got to give them something to even out with dwarves.




Well, instead of giving the other races bonuses, you could take something away from the dwarves.   

I know it seems like heresey to have a DM nerf an entire race, but taking away the racial weapon familiarity and the ability to have full movement in heavy armor puts the dwarf right back in line with the other races.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Dec 27, 2006)

Even with those changes, +2 Con -2 Cha and +2 to saves vs spells still puts the dwarf ahead of the other races.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 27, 2006)

actually, i do take some things away from dwarves.  darkvision, for one.  that's more of a flavor thing, though, because it doesn't really make sense for my campaigns.


----------



## NilesB (Dec 27, 2006)

Many people feel Half Orcs are underpowered; they are wrong.


The real penalty dwarves get isn't charisma, it's move rate.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 27, 2006)

I don't think it's a question of the half-orc actually being underpowered. It's a question of them being underflavored compared to the other non-humans. 
The skill bonuses that elves, dwarves, halfllings, and gnomes get aren't very powerful abilities, but they add nice flavor. 

I think the half-orc should get a +2 to Intimidate and Climb (in 1st ed, they were the best climbers as I recall). I'd also consider a +2 to Survival.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 27, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Many people feel Half Orcs are underpowered; they are wrong.
> 
> 
> The real penalty dwarves get isn't charisma, it's move rate.




That's hardly a penalty when they wear heavy armor. They don't lose speed when that happens.


----------



## NilesB (Dec 27, 2006)

Both the dwarf and the Half Orc (and in fact most core races) have penalties that function more as limitations on the role that they can fill than that have any effect when they are playing their optimal role.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 27, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Both the dwarf and the Half Orc (and in fact most core races) have penalties that function more as limitations on the role that they can fill than that have any effect when they are playing their optimal role.




Most people don't consider wimpy dwarven sorcerers to be a significant dwarven weakness. (With the high hit points, I need to find a word other than "wimpy".)


----------



## NilesB (Dec 27, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Most people don't consider wimpy dwarven sorcerers to be a significant dwarven weakness. (With the high hit points, I need to find a word other than "wimpy".)



But they do consider wimpy Half Orc Sorcerors to be a significant Half-Orcish weakness.  How fair is that?


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 27, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> But they do consider wimpy Half Orc Sorcerors to be a significant Half-Orcish weakness.  How fair is that?




They do?    

Now, it is worth noting that dwarves have the option to be half decent wizards if they want to (actually, pretty awesome ones with the Races of Stone book).  Half-orcs really have no options for arcane casting, even if they wanted to.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 27, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> But they do consider wimpy Half Orc Sorcerors to be a significant Half-Orcish weakness.  How fair is that?




Not me.

I think the half-orc's stat-boosts and penalties are fair, whereas those of the dwarf aren't (it's only half the penalty, and to the most useless of stats when leaving out class options). Unfortunately, they have virtually no other benefits, unlike the other races. (Half-elves have particular weak benefits as well; other than darkvision what else does the half-orc get? A dwarf gets darkvision *and* +2 to many saves, in addition to the fairly long chain of nearly useless abilities.)


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 27, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Half-orcs really have no options for arcane casting, even if they wanted to.




Sure they could.

What does -2 to a spell casting stat really mean in DND?

1) It means -1 to the DC for saving throws. So, 19 times out of 20, the exact same result would occur. 1 time in 20, an opponent will save where he wouldn't have without the -2 to the stat. 95% of the time, there is no change.

2) It means that the character will have 1 to 3 fewer bonus spells. Although significant at real low levels, this is basically white noise by level 8 or so.

3) For Half-Orcs, it means one less skill rank per level and 5% of the time, Int or Cha skills will fail where they would have succeeded.


But, the reason people make such a big deal out of the Half-Orc abilities is that people are basically min-maxers at heart. If something is not optimal, it sucks. Cry me a river. Half-Orcs get the highest core race Strength in the game and Darkvision. For combatant types, it doesn't get much better than that.

But for min-maxers, that's not enough. They have to whine about how Dwarves get more abilities. Sure Dwarves get more abilities. Dwarves are a more defensive race. Half-Orcs are a more offensive race and have better mobility. Pros and Cons people.

At level 4, the 21 Str Half-Orc can Power Attack for one more than the 19 Str Dwarf and be the same to hit, but do with a Greatsword 2D6 +1 (magic) +1 (weapon focus) +7 (strength) +2 (power attack) = 18 average points of damage compared to the Dwarf's 15 average points of damage.

At level 8 (with a +2 magic weapon and 22 Str vs. 20 Str), it goes to 21 average points for the Half-Orc compared to 17 average points for the Dwarf.

And the trend continues. So, 3 to 4 points more damage per successful attack (with the same to hit and the option to have a better to hit without power attacking) is very significant for a melee oriented character. It means that it will often take one fewer successful attack to take out an opponent and it means that the Half-Orc blows through Damage Reduction better. For example, a 60 hit point opponent will be taken out on average with 3 successful hits by the 8th level Half-Orc and 4 successful hits by the 8th level Dwarf. With DR 10, that becomes 6 hits by the Half-Orc and 9 hits by the Dwarf.

Strength for Half-Orcs is just as significant as (if not more significant than) the other defensive benefits that Dwarves get over Half-Orcs. +2 Strength is huge and will finish battles quicker and result in fewer resources per battle than the +2 Con and other defensive abilities that a Dwarf gets.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 27, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> ok, first off... shilsen, half-orcs don't take a hit to WIS, just INT and CHA (which makes sense, especially if you sneak in an Intimidate bonus for them).




Whoops! It's been so long since I used the half-orc as written that I forgot 

And I personally dislike giving Cha penalties to races, since so much of the description of Cha is based on force of personality. So half-orcs in my game get -2 to Int and +2 to Str, and dwarves get a -2 to Dex and a +2 to Con.


----------



## Bad Paper (Dec 27, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> second, yes, i'm familiar with the origin of the word "gyp."  it's a colloquialism.  don't get all red in the face over it.    i'm pretty sure it's passed the point where the term is really associated with Roma.  also, the word "gypsy" applies to groups other than the Roma, so they're not the only ones who should be getting offended over it.



Just because the Irish can also be called _removed by admin_ doesn't make that word any less offensive, or validate its usage, or able to live up to whatever pointless explanation you're attempting to make.  There can be no acceptable defense for the painfully ignorant title of this thread.  Besides, it's the halflings that occupy that particular racial/social slot in this game.  Shouldn't you be asking if half-orcs get "halflingged?"







			
				AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> a raging orc barbarian is a terrible enemy, but not so much moreso than, say, a raging dwarf barbarian



but you can run away from a dwarf.

Half-orcs are fine.  My half-orc barbarian has no problem coping with his fantastic brawn, awesome speed, or fancy darkvision.  Also, dwarves are just kinda lame.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Half-Orcs get the highest core race Strength in the game and Darkvision. For combatant types, it doesn't get much better than that.



Thats the main thing why one has to be carefull adding more onto the half orc. While they could use some small racial freebies, you have to make sure none of it adds to thier damage output. 







> Half-Orcs are a more offensive race



Yep. Though if you go far enough with dwarven beard jokes, racial greed and their xenophobic _clannish_ tendencies you can offend many a gaming group. 







			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Strength for Half-Orcs is just as significant as (if not more significant than) the other defensive benefits that Dwarves get over Half-Orcs. +2 Strength is huge and will finish battles quicker and result in fewer resources per battle than the +2 Con and other defensive abilities that a Dwarf gets.



 Dwarves _were_ given too much. All races will seem 'weak' until the dwarf has some of its abilties removed. Overall the half orc could use a little padding in the racial freebie department. They are plenty strong in thier damage dealing archtype, but for other uses they are a bit lackluster. In my own game I allow them more flexibity, but not one drop more power. [Hobgoblins and Orcs are two breeds of the same race] 

*Half Orc:* Choose at character creation: You may take your +2 ability score bonus to STR, DEX, or CON. You may take your -2 ability score penalties to 2 different stats of your choice. Choose if you are _Disciplined_ [favored class Fighter], or _Degenerate_ [Favored Class Barbarian]


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 27, 2006)

Actually, what gets me about dwarves is that they get both "+2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison" and "+2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects" -- which translates into effectively "+2 on all saving throws except for pitfalls and rat bites".

That's powerful. Way powerful. Way more powerful than any bonus feat or +2 stat.

Now as to the dwarven movement penalty, this is pretty much negated by a single level of barbarian. Yes, the dwarven barbarian isn't as fast as a half-orc or human barbarian, but they are just as fast as a half-orc or human of almost any other class. This is why I say dwarves still have the advantage over the half-orc as a barbarian.

Dwarves also have a bucket of other goodies on top of unbalanced stats. So yeah, I'd say that's a pretty big discrepancy. Lose the "+2 vs. spells and spell-like effects" and it would be a little less egregious. But right now, I maintain that half-orcs have a right to be bitter, stats-wise.

-The Gneech


----------



## kayn99 (Dec 27, 2006)

Please do not forget that the +2 con bonus most likely translate into a +1 Fort. save.  On top of the other saving throw bonuses they get.    

To the point of Dwarven barbarian and Orc barbarian; I think that both places in Medium armor they move the same speed.  Plus the dwarf will be able to stay in rage longer, which could mean more damage over a longer period of time.  

Dwarves are extremely powerful race and some of the ECL +1 races are not as good as them.  I do think the orcs are a little light on abilities.  A better comparision for them might be elves for a balenced race.

Kayn


----------



## Thurbane (Dec 27, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> i mean, compared to the other races, they seem underpowered to me.  their ability scores even out, and the only perk they get is darkvision.  i'm thinking about giving them the scent ability in my next campaign.  would this unbalance the race to the point of LA?



I agree 100%. I made a thread to discuss possible fixes here...


----------



## Klaus (Dec 27, 2006)

My single main beef with the half-orc?

As written, a half-orc is LESS intimidating than a halfling, due to the Cha hit.

At the very least, half-orcs should get +2 to Intimidate and to resist Intimidation, offsetting the Cha penalty.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What does -2 to a spell casting stat really mean in DND?




I believe there's a reason a 15 is the high stat for 25 point buy. That's the lowest spellcasting stat you can have and still get 9th-level spells fast enough without a magic stat-boosting item.

At 1st-level, stat 15, 1st-level spells.
At 3rd-level, stat 15, 2nd-level spells.
At 4th-level, stat 16, 2nd-level spells.
At 5th-level, stat 16, 3rd-level spells.
...
At 12th-level, stat 18, 6th-level spells.
...
At 16th-level, stat 19, 8th-level spells.
At 17th-level, stat 19, 9th-level spells.

It comes pretty close here. If the spellcaster wasn't always boosting their primary stat, they'd be unable to cast their spells without a magical crutch item.

A half-orc sorcerer would either need to start with a 17* (dropped to 15) Charisma, or use a magic item to cast their 9th-level spells. The game is designed so that any high level character is going to have those magic items anyway (eg at 17th-level, the half-orc would have a +6 Charisma item, so 23 Charisma) but I have a problem with a sorcerer who can't cast spells without their magical crutch. I can take the save DC penalty, and the fewer spells, but if you can't even cast the spells without the crutch I consider that to be a seroius problem.

* You're unlikely to roll that, and it would cost _a lot_ of points.

Having said that, I don't think it's a huge deal ... half-orc sorcerers are kind of rare, since anyone playing one would know they're (probably) going to be weak. Or you could play a half-orc gish, in which case you wouldn't need the ultra-high Charisma score.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> As written, a half-orc is LESS intimidating than a halfling, due to the Cha hit.
> 
> At the very least, half-orcs should get +2 to Intimidate and to resist Intimidation, offsetting the Cha penalty.




I think that's a problem with the Intimidate skill. A 300 pound mafioso is intimidating. A 300 pound mafioso who threatens to have his men blow your shop up unless you pay for "protectin" is even more intimidating. If he or she is creative with their language, they're even more intimidating. An old lady threatening you that way probably isn't intimidating unless you know she's got the force to back her up ... by the rules, that might give a +2 bonus. (Lame!)

If the halfling threatens a character with a knife, claiming they'll "cut" you, I think they should be taking a penalty, as the threat isn't very credible unless you know the character is the halfling equivalent of Artemis Entreri, whereas an orc doing the same with a greataxe should get a bonus.

(Also, aren't there size modifiers to Intimidate? I could have sworn I saw that somewhere.)


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 27, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Actually, what gets me about dwarves is that they get both "+2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison" and "+2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects" -- which translates into effectively "+2 on all saving throws except for pitfalls and rat bites".




And +4 vs spells and spell-like abilities that are poison based


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Dec 27, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> My single main beef with the half-orc?
> 
> As written, a half-orc is LESS intimidating than a halfling, due to the Cha hit.
> 
> At the very least, half-orcs should get +2 to Intimidate and to resist Intimidation, offsetting the Cha penalty.




The above is only true if you ignore the intimidate rules.   I'm all for ignoring the intimidate rules because size as a penalty to intimidate is rather silly.

I'd rather have bonus's/penalties depending upon the amount of perceived power the threatener has.  (Be it physical or something else.)


----------



## Darklone (Dec 27, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Whoops! It's been so long since I used the half-orc as written that I forgot
> 
> And I personally dislike giving Cha penalties to races, since so much of the description of Cha is based on force of personality. So half-orcs in my game get -2 to Int and +2 to Str, and dwarves get a -2 to Dex and a +2 to Con.



*hi5 shilsen!*


----------



## shilsen (Dec 27, 2006)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *hi5 shilsen!*



 Okay!

*hi5 Darklone*


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 27, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> That's powerful. Way powerful. Way more powerful than any bonus feat or +2 stat.




Not really.

It means that 90% of the time, the saves will be the same. 10% of the time, the Dwarf will save versus a spell whereas another race would have failed the save. Affecting 10% of saves is more or less affecting one combat in ten (or less) since most combats do not have saves versus spells (or SLAs) and the ones that do, it is rarely more than two saves versus spells per PC (if a PC is making more than 2 saves per spell combat and not doing something about it, he's on the losing end anyway).



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I believe there's a reason a 15 is the high stat for 25 point buy. That's the lowest spellcasting stat you can have and still get 9th-level spells fast enough without a magic stat-boosting item.
> 
> ...
> 
> It comes pretty close here. If the spellcaster wasn't always boosting their primary stat, they'd be unable to cast their spells without a magical crutch item.




Basically, that matters little.

For NPCs, it doesn't matter too much if one has or does not have a magical item. If the DM wants the NPC to cast x level spells, he will either give him the stats or the magical items to get him there, or he will not.

For PCs, it is extremely rare that a PC will not have a stat boosting item. Hence, nearly all 17th level PC casters will have a 19 stat one way or the other if the player wants that to happen. The game really is designed for PCs to have stat boosting items, especially for their primary stats.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 27, 2006)

DevoutlyApathetic said:
			
		

> The above is only true if you ignore the intimidate rules.   I'm all for ignoring the intimidate rules because size as a penalty to intimidate is rather silly.
> 
> I'd rather have bonus's/penalties depending upon the amount of perceived power the threatener has.  (Be it physical or something else.)



 Okay, so a half-orc is less intimidating than an _enlarged_ halfling. Or, heck, less intimidating than an elf.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not really.
> 
> It means that 90% of the time, the saves will be the same.
> 
> ...




So you're saying that a difference of only +1 or +2 doesn't make a difference, and that stat bonuses can be worked around by magic items?

Wow, the half-orc must be very suboptimal, then.  After all, the +2 to Strength that they get only give a +1 to hit and +1 to damage, and can be matched by a simple magic item.

Edit:


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 27, 2006)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> Just because the Irish can also be called s doesn't make that word any less offensive, or validate its usage, or able to live up to whatever pointless explanation you're attempting to make.  There can be no acceptable defense for the painfully ignorant title of this thread.



point taken.  i won't try to defend it.


> Half-orcs are fine.  My half-orc barbarian has no problem coping with his fantastic brawn, awesome speed, or fancy darkvision.  Also, dwarves are just kinda lame.



i think this kind of statement is representative of what i'm talking about.  "my half-orc _barbarian _is fine with his stats."  well, of course he is.  he's a barbarian.  he's got a good STR score that will be an asset when he rages.  what if i don't want to play my half-orc as a barbarian, and, heaven forbid, sidestep a cliche?  i don't think half-orcs should be unduy pigeonholed.  

and, as one poster stated, yes, they lack the flavor that other races have reflected in their stats.  gnomes get illusion, elves don't sleep, etc.  orcs are feral, bestial beings.  the scent ability makes sense, and it isn't overpowered.  orcs are big and brutish.  an intimidate bonus makes sense.  orcs traditionally spend a lot of time away from civilization.  a bonus to survival makes sense.  any and all of these perks would add flavor to the race without overpowering the others.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2006)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> ....doesn't make that word any less offensive, or validate its usage, or able to live up to whatever pointless explanation you're attempting to make.  There can be no acceptable defense for the painfully ignorant title of this thread.




If you have a problem with language use, please report it (using the little exclamation point icon at the bottom of each post), and the moderators will handle it as best we can within our policies.

If you have a problem with language use, please do not deliberately try to avoid our language filters to make things worse.  Cheesing off even more people to make your point is not constructive.  We would prefer to not see any more discussion of this in the thread, as it is quite off the topic.  As always, if you've got any further questions or comments, please e-mail a moderator with your concerns.  Our addresses are available in a thread stickied to the top of the Meta forum.  Thank you.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 28, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> So you're saying that a difference of only +1 or +2 doesn't make a difference, and that stat bonuses can be worked around by magic items?




I'm saying that -2 to a stat does not prevent any classes.

If you want to read something else into that, feel free.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 28, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> i think this kind of statement is representative of what i'm talking about.  "my half-orc _barbarian _is fine with his stats."  well, of course he is.  he's a barbarian.  he's got a good STR score that will be an asset when he rages.  what if i don't want to play my half-orc as a barbarian, and, heaven forbid, sidestep a cliche?  i don't think half-orcs should be unduy pigeonholed.



In a ruleset that focuses on combat the damage dealers have to be carefully balances. If one pulls the half-orc out of thier pidgeon hole with more bonuses, care has to taken to make sure other races remain desirable for combatants.



			
				smootrk said:
			
		

> Half Orcs seem to be somewhat lacking. I believe that it was a conscious (or possibly unconscious) decision to penalize the 'ugly' or 'evil' race just a little bit more over the 'goodly' or traditional races, to help encourage players to choose the more iconic and goodly types.



 Exactly! Half orcs are undisirables. The ruleset has to ensure that the choice to play one is not overly attractive. Just as LA are supposed to be set to protect the PHB races, the Half orc racial bonuses protect the races of the Fellowship. The race is a "*Yes, you can play it if you want."* Not a *"Yes, you should play it."*

http://www.toddlockwood.com/galleries/concept/02/degrees_orcdom.shtml


----------



## Falling Icicle (Dec 28, 2006)

I don't think that a +2 Str is any more beneficial to a fighter type than a +2 mental attribute is to a spellcaster. A +1 save DC makes about a 5% difference in whether the spell "hits"? Well a +1 attack bonus has the same benefit to a melee attack. And a +1 dmg, while helpful, is not that big of a deal.

In my experience, all of the attributes have an approximately equal impact in the game. Of course, a particular stat will be more useful to some classes than others. A high Cha is very helpful to a Bard or Sorcerer, far more so than Str. But the opposite is true to a Fighter or Barbarian character. This doesn't mean that one stat should be worth more than another as far as balancing races go. Yes, I am aware that the DMG says otherwise. I guess that means that I disagree with the DMG on this one. Just because it's in a core book doesn't make it right. If that was the case, this game wouldn't have had so many editions.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Dec 28, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Exactly! Half orcs are undisirables. The ruleset has to ensure that the choice to play one is not overly attractive. Just as LA are supposed to be set to protect the PHB races, the Half orc racial bonuses protect the races of the Fellowship. The race is a "*Yes, you can play it if you want."* Not a *"Yes, you should play it."*




Actually, I think you have it backwards. "Undesirable" classes and races usually get MORE benefits and are slightly OVERpowered to encourage more people to play them. Look at Elves, for example. I think it is pretty clear that Dwarven, Halfing and Gnome racial traits are superior to those of the Elf. Why? Because Elves tend to be one of the, if not the most popular race in the game. I've met many, many people who have played Elves, yet few who want to play a hairy, surly Dwarf. So, to encourage more people to play Dwarves, they were given racial bonuses superior to those that Elves get.

The same is true of the Cleric class. Few people want to be a healer, and even fewer want to be a preachy, devout follower of a God. Lots of people, on the other hand, want to play Wizards. That is why Clerics are much more powerful than Wizards in the game.


----------



## Bihor (Dec 28, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a question of the half-orc actually being underpowered. It's a question of them being underflavored compared to the other non-humans.
> The skill bonuses that elves, dwarves, halfllings, and gnomes get aren't very powerful abilities, but they add nice flavor.




I'm with him.

A couple years ago on this board there was the same discution and I took the suggestion of Enworlders and made my Half-Ord with +2 Intitative, +4 fort save against poison and the *eat anything* (the ability to eat eat anything food.)
these changes made that race more appeling to my players.


----------



## was (Dec 28, 2006)

I do think that they are a little lacking...


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 28, 2006)

Bihor said:
			
		

> I'm with him.
> 
> A couple years ago on this board there was the same discution and I took the suggestion of Enworlders and made my Half-Ord with +2 Intitative, +4 fort save against poison and the *eat anything* (the ability to eat eat anything food.)
> these changes made that race more appeling to my players.






HAHA, I am SO giving half-orcs eat anything now!  

*EAT ANYTHING (EX):* Half-Orcs have cast iron stomachs.  They may eat, digest, and derive nourishment from anything even remotely organic, such as: coal, wood, cloth, slime, dirt, and garbage.


----------



## Grog (Dec 28, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Actually, what gets me about dwarves is that they get both "+2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison" and "+2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects" -- which translates into effectively "+2 on all saving throws except for pitfalls and rat bites".




And breath weapons. And traps. And lots of supernatural abilities.



			
				The_Gneech said:
			
		

> That's powerful. Way powerful. Way more powerful than any bonus feat or +2 stat.




I strongly disagree that it's way more powerful than Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialization, or Improved Initiative (kill that wizard before he can even cast a spell on you).



			
				The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Now as to the dwarven movement penalty, this is pretty much negated by a single level of barbarian.




Not if he wants to wear heavy armor. Or play a class that requires a lawful alignment.


----------



## nittanytbone (Dec 28, 2006)

Note that a lot of this reflects the original 1E conception of half-orcs.

In 1E, half-orcs could ONLY be the following:

-Excellent fighters (capable of reaching Lord status)
-Excellent assassins (unlimited in advancement)
-Good thieves (Great climbers;  penalties to other skills, no unlimited advancement)
-Poor clerics (Capped at level 4!!!)

That's it.  Their racial abilities were quite light as they only got a few bonus languages and infravision.

In 3.5, much of this remains.  Half-orcs make poor arcane casters (INT and CHA penalties), poor paladins (CHA penalty), good brute-force combat rogues (but not skill monkies) due to mobility and strength, decent battle-clerics at lower levels (no WIS penalty;  CHA penalty doesn't hurt until you need to fuel DMM Persistent for Divine Power), and excellent fighters (barbarian favored class, bonus to STR).  They make good climbers (Climb is a STR based skill), just as they did in 1E.

I think the moral is, don't try to put a round peg in a square hole.  Don't expect to play a skill monkey, arcane caster, or shining templar with a half-orc.  Expect to be steered mechanically towards a combat brute who is a bit rough around the edges.

One quick and easy "fix" is to use the DMG suggested rule for swapping STR for CHA on some intimidation checks, or give the half-orc a circumstance bonus in such situations when he has a big bloody greatsword and is really really mad.


----------



## Destil (Dec 28, 2006)

Personally, I'm a bit sick of halfbreeds. It's just silly. IMC I bumped up half orc stat bonuses a little and made them full blow orcs.


----------



## anon (Dec 28, 2006)

[Moderator Edit]

Note above, where Umbran directs everyone to drop the linguistic discussion.

-Hyp.

[/Moderator Edit]


----------



## Sejs (Dec 28, 2006)

Lock-sense... tingling!

Seriously guys, enough already.  Focus on the half orcs.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 28, 2006)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I don't think that a +2 Str is any more beneficial to a fighter type than a +2 mental attribute is to a spellcaster. A +1 save DC makes about a 5% difference in whether the spell "hits"? Well a +1 attack bonus has the same benefit to a melee attack. And a +1 dmg, while helpful, is not that big of a deal.



Just wanted to point out that a +2 to the mental spellcasting attribute means at low levels 1 spell/spelllevel more per day. That's huge. The DC isn't that important, but 5 instead of 4 spells rules.

And halforcs str +2:
As planned, use point buy 25. Noone does, but the class was balanced with point buy 25 in mind. Build a group, usually the only one with str 18 will be the halforc. Give him a twohanded weapon. He will cause +6 damage, the others +4. Two points of damage. Like Weapon Spec, a feat most fighters have and love. With the bonus of +1 to hit, it's like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. At low levels the halforc kills enemies with one or two hit, the others kill them with two or three hits. One hit difference means a lot for how many resources are wasted for the victory.

I do think that's a huge bonus. Granted, the difference gets smaller at higher point buys and at higher levels, but that's your type of game and you're free to change that. Noone forces you to play your game in a certain way. Just don't try to convince others that something is "broken" if you "broke" it for yourself 

Joke: 
Moderators: I do want a rule that people with 3d10 drop lowest character generation are not allowed in "halforcs are weak" threads


----------



## Klaus (Dec 28, 2006)

The best class to work around the half-orc penalties is rogue. The -2 Int is dilluted by the ungodly ammount of skill points the rogue gets. A half-orc with 8 Int still gets 7 skill points per level, which is enough to maximize Hide, Move Silently, Climb, Spot, Listen, Search and Disable Device. The -2 Cha is irrelevant if you don't plan on being a social rogue. The +2 Str bumps up the medium BAB and the darkvision helps a lot.

You could conceivably play an elite array half-orc rogue with Str 15 Dex 15 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 12 Cha 6.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 28, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The best class to work around the half-orc penalties is rogue. The -2 Int is dilluted by the ungodly ammount of skill points the rogue gets. A half-orc with 8 Int still gets 7 skill points per level, which is enough to maximize Hide, Move Silently, Climb, Spot, Listen, Search and Disable Device. The -2 Cha is irrelevant if you don't plan on being a social rogue. The +2 Str bumps up the medium BAB and the darkvision helps a lot.
> 
> You could conceivably play an elite array half-orc rogue with Str 15 Dex 15 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 12 Cha 6.



And don't forget that a halforc rogue (called thug) gets a lot of mileage out of two levels barbarian cause most abilities stack.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 28, 2006)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Just wanted to point out that a +2 to the mental spellcasting attribute means at low levels 1 spell/spelllevel more per day. That's huge. The DC isn't that important, but 5 instead of 4 spells rules.



Also +2 to a mental stat is far too easy easily make into a +3 with the aging rules. Yes, you have to give up points in Str, Dex and Con, but aging one's character for mental stat bumps is completly within the rules. Elves make great casters *because* they have soo many years of middle and old age to work with, even in time spanning campaigns. 

The Stat penaties from aging to midle age are   -1, -1, -1, +1, +1, +1; those are are pretty easy to optimise due to the ease of hiding odd penaties. Old age's -3, -3, -3, +2, +2, +2; is a but harder to optimise, but can be done IMHO. Venerable's -6, -6, -6, +3, +3, +3 really is not for those heading down into dungeons though..


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 28, 2006)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I don't think that a +2 Str is any more beneficial to a fighter type than a +2 mental attribute is to a spellcaster. A +1 save DC makes about a 5% difference in whether the spell "hits"? Well a +1 attack bonus has the same benefit to a melee attack. And a +1 dmg, while helpful, is not that big of a deal.
> 
> In my experience, all of the attributes have an approximately equal impact in the game. Of course, a particular stat will be more useful to some classes than others. A high Cha is very helpful to a Bard or Sorcerer, far more so than Str. But the opposite is true to a Fighter or Barbarian character. This doesn't mean that one stat should be worth more than another as far as balancing races go. Yes, I am aware that the DMG says otherwise. I guess that means that I disagree with the DMG on this one. Just because it's in a core book doesn't make it right. If that was the case, this game wouldn't have had so many editions.



I disagree with your take on Strength, because it's not always just a +1 to damage, particularly for the typical greatsword/greataxe wielding barbarian. No other ability score gets a 1.5x bonus depending on a simple character choice.

Example: Human Barbarian with Str 16 and a greatsword does 2d6+4, 2d6+7 while raging. The Half-Orc with the same points or roll put into Strength gets an 18 and 2d6+6 or 2d6+9 while raging. That may not seem like a big difference, but it all adds up, especially at lower levels. To put it another way, it's like the half-orc gets Weapon Focus (all melee weapons) for free, and Weapon Specialization (two-handed weapons) much of the time--depending on the exact Strength score. That's pretty awesome. And it's why half-orcs make great Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and even Monks.

With Power Attack it's even better. Using the same two guys above, the half-orc can take a -1 to hit with Power Attack, still have an equal chance to hit as the human, and now have a +4 damage advantage (+2 from Str, +2 for a two-handed Power Attack).

As you said, ability scores aren't equal depending on class and focus, but for most melee-focused characters, especially the two-handed weapon guys, Str is king, even if Con is usually #2.

Show me an easily obtainable set of circumstances where any of the other ability scores get 1.5x their modifier (to DC for the spellcasting stats, to AC for Dex, heck even an extra boost for skills) and I'll happily agree that they're equal to Strength and that the half-orc is therefore given the short end of the stick. I see no problem with adding an Intimidate bonus though--I'd personally do a +3, for a net +2 to Intimidate, but that's me.

Of course, all that said, I'd probably still pick a dwarf for the lack of half-orc flavor mentioned previously in the thread. Eberron has mitigated some of this, however, what with cool orc/half-orc druids and a half-orc (and human) dragonmarked house and all. 

[quasi-relevant rambling] My brother once played a great half-orc Fighter who played dumb--he rolled so well for stats that his Int was still a 14 after the Int penalty, and would lull his enemies into a false sense of security by doing the "Thog smash!" bit, only to surprise them with smart tactics later on. That combined with the disgusting amount of damage he'd dish out made for a damn effective, and interesting, character. [/rambling]


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 28, 2006)

*back to the matter at hand...*

anyhow... i noticed that only one post out of 60-something has addressed my original question.  would giving half-orcs (or full-blooded orcs in my campaign), _the scent ability_ unbalance the race to the point of LA?  they would have to take a feat (track) to get optimal use out of it anyway.  and it would add a lot of "flavor" to a statistically bland race.  any takers?


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 28, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> anyhow... i noticed that only one post out of 60-something has addressed my original question.  would giving half-orcs (or full-blooded orcs in my campaign), _the scent ability_ unbalance the race to the point of LA?  they would have to take a feat (track) to get optimal use out of it anyway.  and it would add a lot of "flavor" to a statistically bland race.  any takers?




I think you already knew the answer to that question, even before you posted it. It's obvious that most posters here think that Half-Orcs are a tad on the light side balance-wise already.

And, that is a house rules forum question, not a rules question. Hence, the number of rules balance oriented answers in this thread.


----------



## szilard (Dec 28, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> anyhow... i noticed that only one post out of 60-something has addressed my original question.  would giving half-orcs (or full-blooded orcs in my campaign), _the scent ability_ unbalance the race to the point of LA?  they would have to take a feat (track) to get optimal use out of it anyway.  and it would add a lot of "flavor" to a statistically bland race.  any takers?




Scent is nice, but I don't think it is overbalancing - especially in a race that already has darkvision. It will, however, change some things. Ranger will be a fairly popular class choice (or at least dip) in order to grab Track for free. I don't think this is bad - Ranger seems as good a class for half-orcs as Barbarian does.

Do you give full-blooded orcs the Scent ability as well?

-Stuart


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 28, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> That's hardly a penalty when they wear heavy armor. They don't lose speed when that happens.




On the balance I think a Half-Orc Barbarian in chain shirt moving 40' holds its own with your Dwarf Fighter in full plate moving 20'.

As pointed out already, Half-Orcs are the only race for which the PC is likely to have (or afford, if you prefer) a starting 18 Str.  That is a huge boost when you are using 2-handed weapons at low levels.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 28, 2006)

Not in my opinion. Scent would be fine.

Further, Strength is a poor ability. Yeah, +1 more dmg and +1 more hit is moderately nice, but as we all know, Int and Wis and Cha are the power stats for the real classes, you know, the ones that are actually powerful, like Druids, Clerics, and Wizards. Even Sorcerors and Psions.

Is someone arguing Strength is powerful because it lets the Fighter do +1 hit and dmg?

And that a race is ok, because it has +2 to this spectacularly potent ability?

Dwarves, as noted, have a vaunted physical ability without -2 to 2 mental stats. Just silly. 

Half-Orc is a terrible race.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 28, 2006)

I don't think Scent is fine unless full orcs get it too. Otherwise, what is the explanation?


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 28, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Further, Strength is a poor ability. Yeah, +1 more dmg and +1 more hit is moderately nice, but as we all know, Int and Wis and Cha are the power stats for the real classes, you know, the ones that are actually powerful, like Druids, Clerics, and Wizards. Even Sorcerors and Psions.




It depends on level.

Low level Druids, Clerics, and Wizards are relatively weak. Low level Barbarians and Fighters are strong. That gradually changes as levels advance, but in order for a high level Cleric or Wizard to be mega-powerful, he has to survive low levels (assuming a campaign where PCs start at low level).


----------



## Klaus (Dec 28, 2006)

Of course, the 3.0 DMG already suggested allowing gnomes and half-orcs to take Scent as a feat, with, IIRC, a prerequisite of Wis 13+.

Woot! It's a Rules Forum question again!


----------



## Seeten (Dec 28, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It depends on level.
> 
> Low level Druids, Clerics, and Wizards are relatively weak. Low level Barbarians and Fighters are strong. That gradually changes as levels advance, but in order for a high level Cleric or Wizard to be mega-powerful, he has to survive low levels (assuming a campaign where PCs start at low level).




Thats true. Since we arent balancing the other races based on level 1, why are we balancing the Half-Orc based on level 1?

Since Wizards are great at level 9, should races with +2 int get a -2 on 2 physical stats?

Its silly. Strength is in no way more powerful, 1-20, then any other ability. Lots of classes use Cha as a dump stat, I grant you.

Wait for it.

Lots of classes use Str as a dumpt stat.

Races can be multiple classes. 

Half-Orc is not balanced, and Str is not better than any other stat, including Cha. Despite arbitrary claims about +1 melee damage to the contrary. Further, I think posters making this claim know that it isnt balanced when they say it.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 28, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Further, Strength is a poor ability. Yeah, +1 more dmg and +1 more hit is moderately nice, but as we all know, Int and Wis and Cha are the power stats for the real classes, you know, the ones that are actually powerful, like Druids, Clerics, and Wizards. Even Sorcerors and Psions.



You mean "Strength is a poor ability _for a caster_?" 'Cause I agree with that. For a melee person, as I mentioned above, Strength is the bee's knees.



> Is someone arguing Strength is powerful because it lets the Fighter do +1 hit and dmg?



No, because a half-orc's Strength lets the Fighter do +1 to hit and damage _compared to non half-orc Fighters._ And more with two-handers, and even more with Power Attack while having the same chance to hit.



> And that a race is ok, because it has +2 to this spectacularly potent ability?



I think half-orc melee characters are perfectly fine, yes, because Strength is the most important ability for melee outside of builds specially crafted (i.e. that make trade-offs) to mitigate a mediocre Strength (e.g. Swashbuckler from Complete Warrior or TWF builds that try to do more damage through more attacks).



> Dwarves, as noted, have a vaunted physical ability without -2 to 2 mental stats. Just silly.



Because Con isn't as good as Strength in melee. Which is better in melee, a few more hp (hardly any increase at low levels) or the ability to kill a guy faster so he gets to make fewer attacks--any one of which can totally destroy the Con hp bonus and then some?



> Half-Orc is a terrible race.



 For non-melee characters, most certainly. For melee characters, I disagree. For those that want to pick up a sharp piece of steel and do the most damage possible with it from day one, half-orcs can't be beat by any race in the PHB.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 28, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Half-Orc is not balanced, and Str is not better than any other stat, including Cha. Despite arbitrary claims about +1 melee damage to the contrary. Further, I think posters making this claim know that it isnt balanced when they say it.




What core race has +2 to Int, Cha, or Wis?

So, why is a mental stat boost overpowered and a Str stat boost weak? Answer, it's not. The reason Half-Orcs get -2 to two mental stats and not a lot of other abilities is because for classes where +2 Str is good, it is great. Just like races for which +2 Int is good, it is great.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 28, 2006)

Elves have +2 int. They are core, right in the MM, and right in the SRD.


----------



## seans23 (Dec 28, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Elves have +2 int. They are core, right in the MM, and right in the SRD.




Not exactly.  Elves get +2 Dex, -2 Con in the SRD.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#elves

Some subraces in the SRD have int bonuses:

Drow get +2 Int, +2 Cha (and a Level Adjustment of 2)

Gray Elves get +2 Int, +2 Dex, -2 Con, -2 Str.


----------



## NilesB (Dec 28, 2006)

seans23 said:
			
		

> Gray Elves get +2 Int, +2 Dex, -2 Con, -2 Str.



Gray Elves are kinda broken.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 28, 2006)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> You mean "Strength is a poor ability _for a caster_?" 'Cause I agree with that. For a melee person, as I mentioned above, Strength is the bee's knees.




And for a non melee character its completely worthless.



			
				Enforcer said:
			
		

> No, because a half-orc's Strength lets the Fighter do +1 to hit and damage _compared to non half-orc Fighters._ And more with two-handers, and even more with Power Attack while having the same chance to hit.




And for non-Fighter/Barbarian, it lets them do diddly squat. For Swashbucklers, and light fighters, its no better than good dex. For Scout, its no better than dex. So for 1 underpowered class, and 1 average class, Strength is a good ability? Woo hoo! Sign me up!

Look, just because in 1e, your fighter had 18/00 and it was godly does not make Strength better than Intelligence in 3.5. Sorry.



			
				Enforcer said:
			
		

> I think half-orc melee characters are perfectly fine, yes, because Strength is the most important ability for melee outside of builds specially crafted (i.e. that make trade-offs) to mitigate a mediocre Strength (e.g. Swashbuckler from Complete Warrior or TWF builds that try to do more damage through more attacks).




I think Half-Orc Fighters are mediocre. They cant intimidate, they are worse than the worst fighter as unless they pump int they get 0 skill points, in short, they suck. As Barbarians they fare slightly better, as at least they get 2 skill points there. I know, lets make a class thats good for one class, but not as good as dwarves, and waste space in the PHB by making them core! Or not.



			
				Enforcer said:
			
		

> Because Con isn't as good as Strength in melee. Which is better in melee, a few more hp (hardly any increase at low levels) or the ability to kill a guy faster so he gets to make fewer attacks--any one of which can totally destroy the Con hp bonus and then some?




Frankly, since all races can be all classes, this is the single weakest part of your argument. Con is good for every single class. Strength is a dump stat for tons of classes. Nobody is arguing Half-Orcs are better than dwarves for VERY good reason. Strength is NOT better than Con, Con is the single most important ability score in the entire game. Strength is ok for specific builds in specific classes only.



			
				Enforcer said:
			
		

> For non-melee characters, most certainly. For melee characters, I disagree. For those that want to pick up a sharp piece of steel and do the most damage possible with it from day one, half-orcs can't be beat by any race in the PHB.




+1 hit, +1 dmg, +1.5 dmg with a two hander. Thats your big trump card. Cant intimidate, get no skills, no improved trip, no combat expertise. You know, I simply can't understand where anyone makes these statements. They make no sense. Doing slightly more damage at the cost of the rest of your abilities in 2 classes, and being pure awful at every other class makes the race awful. I see no argument that being an OK Barbarian, but not the best choice, and being a mediocre fighter, and being terrible as: Sorceror, Bard, Psion, Cleric(Assuming you want to turn undead.) Wizard, Warlock.

Half-Orc is slightly better than Kobold. Slightly. Thats my stand on it. And only because Kobold gets -2 con. If you removed the -2 con, Kobold would be head and shoulders better.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 28, 2006)

seans23 said:
			
		

> Not exactly.  Elves get +2 Dex, -2 Con in the SRD.
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#elves
> 
> Some subraces in the SRD have int bonuses:
> ...





And following the logic that Strength is more important, they should get an extra +2 somewhere to balance out the penalty.


Half-orcs are seriously screwed over.  "Big dumb ugly strong guy" is not a way to make a race interesting.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 28, 2006)

> And halforcs str +2:
> As planned, use point buy 25. Noone does, but the class was balanced with point buy 25 in mind. Build a group, usually the only one with str 18 will be the halforc. Give him a twohanded weapon. He will cause +6 damage, the others +4. Two points of damage. Like Weapon Spec, a feat most fighters have and love. With the bonus of +1 to hit, it's like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec.






			
				Enforcer said:
			
		

> Example: Human Barbarian with Str 16 and a greatsword does 2d6+4, 2d6+7 while raging. The Half-Orc with the same points or roll put into Strength gets an 18 and 2d6+6 or 2d6+9 while raging. That may not seem like a big difference, but it all adds up, especially at lower levels. To put it another way, it's like the half-orc gets Weapon Focus (all melee weapons) for free, and Weapon Specialization (two-handed weapons) much of the time--depending on the exact Strength score.




Don't get me wrong, Enforcer, I love it when people agree... and we do completely agree. Still, I love it too when people read threads before they answer


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 28, 2006)

When you look at races, you should look at the best potential of that race.

+2 to the str is very good for a melee race. It doesn't matter that a caster wouldn't benefit from the strength bonus...a caster simply won't be one. If he wants to play a combination that is underpowered, that the caster's perogative.

So to me, its not that the stat bonuses of the half-orc hurt non fighter classes, its just that they have no more bonuses. Dwarves get +2 to poison saves and the BIG one in my mind, +2 to all spells and SLA. That's about as good as a +2 to will saves right there, which is a fighter's achilles heel...and of course the bonus to reflex saves, which are also weak for a fighter. A half-orc only gets the +2 str, that's it. Its just not enough in my mind.


----------



## smootrk (Dec 28, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> You know, I simply can't understand where anyone makes these statements. They make no sense. Doing slightly more damage at the cost of the rest of your abilities in 2 classes, and being pure awful at every other class makes the race awful. I see no argument that being an OK Barbarian, but not the best choice, and being a mediocre fighter, and being terrible as: Sorceror, Bard, Psion, Cleric(Assuming you want to turn undead.) Wizard, Warlock.



I agree with this completely.  Most races are really great for at least one class, yet still functionally adequate for most other classes, if not all other classes, with rare exceptions.  Half-Orcs seem to be designed to only be good for one role, and abysmally unsuited for any other endeavor.

I like a lot of the suggested fixes, and I will likely re-design the Half-Orc to have a choice of a few of these options to reflect the adaptability/variability of such a half-breed race.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 28, 2006)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, Enforcer, I love it when people agree... and we do completely agree. Still, I love it too when people read threads before they answer



Well...it was worth repeating.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 28, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> anyhow... i noticed that only one post out of 60-something has addressed my original question.  would giving half-orcs (or full-blooded orcs in my campaign), _the scent ability_ unbalance the race to the point of LA?  they would have to take a feat (track) to get optimal use out of it anyway.  and it would add a lot of "flavor" to a statistically bland race.  any takers?




I think it would be perfectly fine and balanced.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 28, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> So to me, its not that the stat bonuses of the half-orc hurt non fighter classes, its just that they have no more bonuses. Dwarves get +2 to poison saves and the BIG one in my mind, +2 to all spells and SLA. That's about as good as a +2 to will saves right there, which is a fighter's achilles heel...and of course the bonus to reflex saves, which are also weak for a fighter. A half-orc only gets the +2 str, that's it. Its just not enough in my mind.



How about:

*Empty headed:* Half orcs have a +2 bonus against mind affecting spells and effects.

*Abused*: Can Take Die Hard feat without meeting prerequisite.

*Kinslayer:* +1 to hit orcs in melee

_-These are human raised traits-_

*Labourer* +50% carring capacity

*Thrown down the well and came right back:* +2 to swim and climb checks.

_-These are orc raised traits-_

*Orcish leader:* +2 to Leadership score if cohort and at least 50% of followers have orc blood.

*Beast rider* +2 to ride checks and handle animal on dire wolves [or other campaign specific orcish mount].

*Nobody's bitch:* +4 to on checks to escape grapple and break pins.

*The pretty face:* +3 on diplomacy checks with orcs, gnolls, gobliniods, minotaurs and non-good giants.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 28, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> And for a non melee character its completely worthless.



Right...I said that already.


> And for non-Fighter/Barbarian, it lets them do diddly squat. For Swashbucklers, and light fighters, its no better than good dex. For Scout, its no better than dex. So for 1 underpowered class, and 1 average class, Strength is a good ability? Woo hoo! Sign me up!



If the Swashbuckler or Scout wants to do more damage, of course Strength is useful. Who cares how well you can hit with Weapon Finesse if the guy you're hitting doesn't care? They're not going to turn down a higher Strength if they can get it. And Swashbucklers need one stat for to hit, another for damage (and only after level 3). Strength-focused melee guys need just one stat for both.



> Look, just because in 1e, your fighter had 18/00 and it was godly does not make Strength better than Intelligence in 3.5. Sorry.



Never played 1e, actually, and even if I did it wouldn't make the above relevant in the least. Your argument makes no sense, however, 18/00 gives a +3 hit and +6 damage (at least in Baldur's Gate--I'm assuming it was the same in 1e). An 18 Str in 3.5 gives a +4/+4...or a +4/+6 with a two-hander. Pretty much the same one-handed (and in 3.5 Str 18 is even better two-handed than 18/00 in 1e!), but according to you that's godly. A Half-Orc with a Str 20 is even better than your godly 18/00.



> I think Half-Orc Fighters are mediocre. They cant intimidate, they are worse than the worst fighter as unless they pump int they get 0 skill points, in short, they suck. As Barbarians they fare slightly better, as at least they get 2 skill points there. I know, lets make a class thats good for one class, but not as good as dwarves, and waste space in the PHB by making them core! Or not.



Skill ranks will beat Cha modifier every time...even with a Cha 6 you can still get a +2 Intimidate at level 1. And note I advocated an Intimidate bonus above.

Anyone who chooses Fighter for their skill points is making a bad decision to begin with... Also, you get a minimum of 1 skill point/level no matter what your Int is, so I don't understand the 0 skill points thing. 



> Frankly, since all races can be all classes, this is the single weakest part of your argument. Con is good for every single class. Strength is a dump stat for tons of classes. Nobody is arguing Half-Orcs are better than dwarves for VERY good reason. Strength is NOT better than Con, Con is the single most important ability score in the entire game. Strength is ok for specific builds in specific classes only.



I agree with Con being good for all classes. It's not the most important in the game, as you yourself stated when talking about mental stats for casters... Con, like other stats, is situational. And I would argue that Con is less important for high HD classes than it is for puny Wizards and the like. I'm not arguing that Half-Orcs are better than Dwarves for all classes. I never have, and never will, 'cause it just ain't true. I'm arguing that Half-Orcs are better than Dwarves for melee characters and they're much better for Barbarians.



> +1 hit, +1 dmg, +1.5 dmg with a two hander. Thats your big trump card. Cant intimidate, get no skills, no improved trip, no combat expertise. You know, I simply can't understand where anyone makes these statements. They make no sense. Doing slightly more damage at the cost of the rest of your abilities in 2 classes, and being pure awful at every other class makes the race awful. I see no argument that being an OK Barbarian, but not the best choice, and being a mediocre fighter, and being terrible as: Sorceror, Bard, Psion, Cleric(Assuming you want to turn undead.) Wizard, Warlock.



I've gone over Intimidate (ranks trump stat every time) and the 0 skill point rules error you've made. Barbarians can't use Combat Expertise while raging anyways, and yes, their Int penalty makes that line of feats hard to get. Just like halflings and gnomes generally don't get the Power Attack line of feats.

However, your argument that Half-Orcs don't make great Barbarians and Fighters is just silly. Those classes have one job (and no, it isn't skill points), and that's dealing the melee damage and surviving hits if anyone manages to live through round 1 with Thog the Half-Orc. Half-Orcs have the clear advantage in the damage category. They indisputably do more melee damage than any other race. With Power Attack they're downright vicious--again, +4 damage at level 1 with Power Attack with the same chance to hit as the non-Power Attack human or dwarf, and they'll continue to be better through level 20.

As for taking the hits, with a d10 or d12 hit die, they're perfectly fine-.



> Half-Orc is slightly better than Kobold. Slightly. Thats my stand on it. And only because Kobold gets -2 con. If you removed the -2 con, Kobold would be head and shoulders better.



Thog crush puny kobolds.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 28, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Of course, the 3.0 DMG already suggested allowing gnomes and half-orcs to take Scent as a feat, with, IIRC, a prerequisite of Wis 13+.
> 
> Woot! It's a Rules Forum question again!



fabulous.

oh, and for everyone who asked, let me reiterate: IMC, there's no such thing as half-orcs.  just orcs.  orcs that use the stats of half-orcs.  so yes, full-blooded orcs would get the scent ability too... and probably the intimidate bonus.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 28, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> fabulous.
> 
> oh, and for everyone who asked, let me reiterate: IMC, there's no such thing as half-orcs.  just orcs.  orcs that use the stats of half-orcs.  so yes, full-blooded orcs would get the scent ability too... and probably the intimidate bonus.



That seems cool, but as mentioned be prepared for some Ranger-dipping. Not that that's a bad thing.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 28, 2006)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> Bunch of excuses for why a one-trick pony, whose one trick is the weakest build in the game, makes the race with unbalanced ability scores balanced




Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 28, 2006)

Indeed, though not without parting shots I see.  :\


----------



## Seeten (Dec 28, 2006)

If the race was -2 str, -2 dex - 2 con +2 wis +2 cha I'd agree it needed unbalanced ability scores, since it makes a great cleric, and clerics are godly.

Being a great fighter, not that I think they are, as stated previously, but even if they were a great fighter, does not deserve punishment. Fighters blow.

Sorry, I couldnt rest without getting more shots in. I'm a bad person.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 28, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> How about:
> 
> *Empty headed:* Half orcs have a +2 bonus against mind affecting spells and effects.
> 
> ...



 Y'know, those are awesome ideas!

YOINKED!


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 28, 2006)

Fighters rule until about level 5, in my experience. But yeah, once the casters start getting the heavy artillery, they take the prize. I still think melee builds are important though--had a group that got to 13th in which the Fighter/Kensai was an absolute wrecking machine, even if he couldn't slay whole armies with a single cloudkill. With PHB II feats, I'm actually interested in playing a Human Fighter 1-20 though.

And you're not a bad person, you just got into an argument on the Internet. We're both probably sad people though. 

Apologies to the OP, I'm leaving now. (I do think the Scent idea is cool though, as are frankthedm's suggestions).


----------



## Seeten (Dec 28, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> How about:
> 
> *Empty headed:* Half orcs have a +2 bonus against mind affecting spells and effects.
> 
> ...




I frequently want to yell and scream at Frank's posts, but then he ups and posts incredible stuff, and I smile. *sigh*


----------



## Grog (Dec 28, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I think Half-Orc Fighters are mediocre. They cant intimidate, they are worse than the worst fighter as unless they pump int they get 0 skill points, in short, they suck. As Barbarians they fare slightly better, as at least they get 2 skill points there.




Are you seriously using _skill points_ as the criteria for determining how good a class is? No offense, but that's just silly. Except for rogues and maybe bards, skills just aren't that important for most classes. Most classes have one or two important skills that they'll max out (like Concentration and Spellcraft for casters), but beyond that, they're just gravy.

I mean, would anyone seriously argue that a 20th level bard was better than a 20th level sorceror because he has more skill points?

And anyway, a half-orc fighter gets 1 skill point per level, and a human fighter gets 2 (assuming neither one puts any points into Int). That's not really that big a difference.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 28, 2006)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> would giving half-orcs (or full-blooded orcs in my campaign), _the scent ability_ unbalance the race to the point of LA?




I think so. Check out scent



> This extraordinary ability lets a creature detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell.
> 
> A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at three times these ranges.
> 
> The creature detects another creature’s presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If it moves within 5 feet of the scent’s source, the creature can pinpoint that source.




So, an ability that lets you pinpoint invisible foes that you are next to? Sounds amazingly strong to me. Especially including being aware of hidden foes within 15-60ft.

I don't allow high LA races, and I wouldn't allow a PC race with this kind of ability.

Cheers


----------



## Seeten (Dec 28, 2006)

A human fighter can have combat expertise, improved trip, improved disarm, an entire feat chain of really nice tanking abilities with a 13 int. A Half-Orc has to drop a 15 in int just to learn the feats. Dunno about you, but those feats are pretty good.

Skills? They can matter. Sure.They are part of the whole. Half-Orcs dont get a bonus feat. They dont get bonus skill points, no bonus to saves, no bonus to skills, no crafting, no nothing. They get 2 strength, and thats it.

As I have already said, Strength is the best ability for fighters and barbs, and arguably arent even second best at either class. I'd play human first in BOTH cases. Further, Half-Orc's do nothing else, and fighter is the weakest class in the entire game. Skills are just a FURTHER slap in the face of the half-orc, that and the fact that halflings are MORE intimidating.


----------



## Grog (Dec 28, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> So, an ability that lets you pinpoint invisible foes that you are next to? Sounds amazingly strong to me. Especially including being aware of hidden foes within 15-60ft.




Anyone can pinpoint an invisible foe. All you have to do is walk around the battlefield with your arms spread wide open. Since most 3.x combat takes place in dungeons, you can probably cover a great many rooms with a single or double move action.


----------



## Grog (Dec 29, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> A human fighter can have combat expertise, improved trip, improved disarm, an entire feat chain of really nice tanking abilities with a 13 int. A Half-Orc has to drop a 15 in int just to learn the feats. Dunno about you, but those feats are pretty good.




So the half-orc has to spend 3 more points on Int than the human does. This isn't the tremendous disadvantage you're making it out to be, especially since the half-orc doesn't have to spend as many points on Str.

And that's only if he wants those particular feats. Not every fighter takes them. Far from it.



			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> Skills? They can matter. Sure.They are part of the whole. Half-Orcs dont get a bonus feat. They dont get bonus skill points, no bonus to saves, no bonus to skills, no crafting, no nothing. They get 2 strength, and thats it.




Humans don't get a bonus to saves or a bonus to skills either. Again, the difference is not nearly as huge as you're making it out to be.

Humans get: One bonus feat, one bonus skill point per level
Half-orcs get: +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha, Darkvision

Sure, a bonus feat is a really nice thing to have at first level, but if you're playing a fighter, it's not that significant by 8th level or so. I'd say the bonus feat and the darkvision balance each other out, with the darkvision probably being a little bit better at lower levels and not as good at higher levels.

Which leaves humans with their +1 skill points per level versus the half-orcs stat modifiers. Like I said, for most classes, more skill points really aren't that much of a bonus. For a meele fighter, I'd rather have the +2 Strength, even with the Int and Cha penalty.



			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> Skills are just a FURTHER slap in the face of the half-orc, that and the fact that halflings are MORE intimidating.




Wrong. Halflings are Small, which gives them a -4 on Intimidate checks relative to half-orcs. Factoring in the Charisma penalty, that means that all other things being equal, they'll always have an Intimidate check 3 points better than a halfling's.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 29, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> Anyone can pinpoint an invisible foe. All you have to do is walk around the battlefield with your arms spread wide open. Since most 3.x combat takes place in dungeons, you can probably cover a great many rooms with a single or double move action.




You would have a very generous DM who allowed you to do that, and it wouldn't be of any benefit in combat either.

I'm hoping that you are joking here...


----------



## Grog (Dec 29, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You would have a very generous DM who allowed you to do that, and it wouldn't be of any benefit in combat either.
> 
> I'm hoping that you are joking here...




"Allowed?" It's simple common sense; a human-sized creature with their arms spread open covers roughly five feet of space. You just keep moving until you run into the invisible creature. Then your friends attack it.

This tactic obviously wouldn't work in a wide-open outdoor location or a big cave (and the scent ability wouldn't work very well in those areas either), but in an average-sized dungeon room, it's extremely effective.


----------



## smootrk (Dec 29, 2006)

I wouldn't allow it, because despite D&D Combat being turned based, it is really an abstract of events all occurring nearly simultaneously, including the invis critter being as evasive as the 'finder' is trying to locate.  The other characters would not gain any benefit, just because one person accidentally-onpurpose bumped into an invis being during the round.


----------



## Thurbane (Dec 29, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> How about:
> 
> *Empty headed:* Half orcs have a +2 bonus against mind affecting spells and effects.
> 
> ...



Great stuff as usual, frank.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Dec 29, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Y'know, those are awesome ideas!
> 
> YOINKED!



ditto.


> So, an ability that lets you pinpoint invisible foes that you are next to? Sounds amazingly strong to me. Especially including being aware of hidden foes within 15-60ft.



following this logic, you wouldn't let a human choose blind-fight with his bonus feat?  being aware through scent that an invisible being is present doesn't allow you to attack them, it just means that you won't be flat-footed when the dagger falls.  maybe not even that... scent seems awfully close to blindsense, effectively, and blindsense doesn't remove flat-footedness against invisible attackers.  furthermore, an invisible opponent would have to be adjacent for you to pinpoint its location, and you'd still get the miss chance because of concealment.


> Are you seriously using skill points as the criteria for determining how good a class is? No offense, but that's just silly. Except for rogues and maybe bards, skills just aren't that important for most classes. Most classes have one or two important skills that they'll max out (like Concentration and Spellcraft for casters), but beyond that, they're just gravy.



this all depends on the game, i think.  i tend to run very skill-intensive games, where you can't solve every problem with a sword or a spell.  so, yeah, in my game, skill points per level make a big difference.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 29, 2006)

The strength of the human bonus feat isn't the feat per se, but the ability to meet requirements for stronger abilities up to 3 levels earlier. That's very significant.


----------



## Grog (Dec 29, 2006)

smootrk said:
			
		

> I wouldn't allow it, because despite D&D Combat being turned based, it is really an abstract of events all occurring nearly simultaneously, including the invis critter being as evasive as the 'finder' is trying to locate.  The other characters would not gain any benefit, just because one person accidentally-onpurpose bumped into an invis being during the round.




But if the invisible creature is spending all its time being evasive, it can't do anything else. This could be reflected in game mechanics by the invisible creature readying an action to move away if one of the PCs approaches it. But if it does this, it can't take any action of its own, and with multiple characters walking around the room, it's going to get found very quickly, since you can only ready one action per round.


----------



## smootrk (Dec 29, 2006)

I can evade blows/touch at any time during the round... its called AC value, and it is effective throughout the round.  No creature is just standing idle, waiting to be touched by people with their arms outstretched and waving about like a person in a dark room.  No readying is necessary for basic defense posture.

Like I said, it is an abstract of multiple actions occurring nearly simultaneously.  It is not a perfect, orderly, choreography.  It is a game-mechanic used to resolve the combat situation... and it is not without its flaws.


----------



## Grog (Dec 29, 2006)

Basic defense posture doesn't include the ability to leave the five-foot square you're occupying at will, which is what one would need to do to avoid a person walking into their square with their arms wide open.

Think about it this way. Look around the room you're in. Assuming it's not unusually large, there is no way an invisible creature could avoid you for very long if you were to put your arms out to your sides and walk quickly around the room, so long as you didn't move in any kind of predictable pattern.

Put me in an average-sized living room and I could easily find an invisible creature, even if it was specifically trying to avoid me. It wouldn't even take me very long to do it. And so could you. I guarantee it. Now, most dungeon rooms are somewhat bigger than that - but with a party, you also have more people searching.


----------



## smootrk (Dec 29, 2006)

If I can evade a sword blow aimed directly at my head within my 5 foot cube, then I should have the same benefit from someone waving their arms about without even seeing me.... I guess just a difference of opinion here.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 29, 2006)

There are specific rules for what this "walking about with arms open" ammounts to in the (iirc) DMG. The character chooses two squares adjacent to him and grope about as (again, iirc) a standard action. He rolls a touch attack and, if there's an invisible character there, he pinpoints the location (at least until the creature's next action). The 50% miss chance still applies, even if you pinpoint the invisible character.


----------



## Grog (Dec 29, 2006)

You can't automatically evade a sword blow, though. A completely average human swinging at another completely average human is going to hit better than 50% of the time (10 or better on 1d20). And that's swinging a weapon with the intent to do damage, not just trying to find someone.

Find an empty room sometime, close your eyes, and try to find a friend using the method I described above. I bet it doesn't take you very long at all.


----------



## smootrk (Dec 29, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> Basic defense posture doesn't include the ability to leave the five-foot square you're occupying at will, which is what one would need to do to avoid a person walking into their square with their arms wide open..



You are still interpreting the situation in a turn-based reality, which is not what the round of combat is really supposed to signify.  All movement, all actions, all inactions for the entire set of participants all really occurs during the same 6 second period.  There is no systematic shuffling around of folks in an orderly fashion.  The turns of a round are there just to establish a mechanic to approximate the actions of combat, and to resolve the situation in a reasonably orderly fashion.


----------



## Grog (Dec 29, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> There are specific rules for what this "walking about with arms open" ammounts to in the (iirc) DMG. The character chooses two squares adjacent to him and grope about as (again, iirc) a standard action. He rolls a touch attack and, if there's an invisible character there, he pinpoints the location (at least until the creature's next action). The 50% miss chance still applies, even if you pinpoint the invisible character.




"Groping about" is reaching into adjacent squares _without moving_. Simply walking around and trying to bump into an invisible creature would be much faster and more effective.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 29, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> "Groping about" is reaching into adjacent squares _without moving_. Simply walking around and trying to bump into an invisible creature would be much faster and more effective.




This should not be allowed in the game.



> Step 2
> Opponent Avoids? The defender has the option to simply avoid you. If he avoids you, he doesn’t suffer any ill effect and you may keep moving (You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by.) The overrun attempt doesn’t count against your actions this round (except for any movement required to enter the opponent’s square).




If a visible opponent can just avoid an *attack* of an overrun, an invisible opponent should easily be able to avoid any of the proposed "simply walking around" or "arms outstretched" attempts.

There's a reason that the Spot DCs for invisible creature rules are in the game. These difficult DCs should not be simply avoided by walking around.

The groping rules are also there for a reason:



> A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature’s current location. (If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.)




I would only allow finding an invisible with either the approprite DC 30 or 40 spot, or the groping rules.

People "simply walking around" will just be avoided by the invisible creatures.


----------



## Arkhandus (Dec 29, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> How about: ***real funny suggestions ensue***




That was awesome.     Thanks for the laughs.  A bright point in my boring day.


----------



## epochrpg (Dec 29, 2006)

Thermmese said:
			
		

> they often speak orc and are considered orc blood.




yeah, so dwarves and rangers can do extra damage to them, and certain magical weapons were made to slay them.  How is orc-blood an advantage again?


----------



## green slime (Dec 29, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> "Groping about" is reaching into adjacent squares _without moving_. Simply walking around and trying to bump into an invisible creature would be much faster and more effective.




I disagree. 

You assume the invisible person is just standing around smoking a joint waiting to be tagged.

in a 30' square room, blindfolded, you'd have a hard time trying to tag someone who was actively avoiding you.


----------



## Jhulae (Dec 29, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think so. Check out scent
> 
> 
> 
> So, an ability that lets you pinpoint invisible foes that you are next to? Sounds amazingly strong to me. Especially including being aware of hidden foes within 15-60ft.




Scent may allow you to know that there's an invisible opponent, even the exact square that opponent is in if she's next to the creature with scent, but that does *not* dismiss the 50% miss chance for attacking an invisible opponent.

So, it's not quite as powerful as it seems.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 29, 2006)

Great stuff, Frank. Exactly what I wanted


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 29, 2006)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> So, it's not quite as powerful as it seems.




Actually in some scenarios, it can be quite powerful.

One of the best mid-level tactics is to cast Greater Invisibility and then each round, fire off an offensive spell and move upwards of 30 feet.

Abilities like Scent mostly negate this type of tactic since such a caster can then more easily be tagged by both area effect spells and by melee attacks.

Knowing the exact square is a lot better than knowing that an Invisible creature is in one of 121 squares (for a 30 move creature, more for a faster caster or a flying caster).

What's the miss chance on a 1 in 121 chance of targeting the proper square times the 50% normal miss chance?


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 29, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> You can't automatically evade a sword blow, though. A completely average human swinging at another completely average human is going to hit better than 50% of the time (10 or better on 1d20). And that's swinging a weapon with the intent to do damage, not just trying to find someone.
> 
> Find an empty room sometime, close your eyes, and try to find a friend using the method I described above. I bet it doesn't take you very long at all.





I'll take that bet, as long as you're trying to do the finding and I can move as much as you can. (duck, weave, kneel, etc.)



Say, 1000 dollars I can avoid you for at least a minute? (10 rounds)  



Or were you assuming that creatures just don't move when it isn't their turn to attack?


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 29, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Or were you assuming that creatures just don't move when it isn't their turn to attack?




He sure as heck was not assuming a noisy battle around him where he would never ever hear a single unseen opponent.


----------



## Janx (Dec 29, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Do you know what the word Gypped means?
> 
> Way to bash the Roma people....




no one's bashing gypsies, and in fact, if nobody knew what it was derived from, they can't be propagating a stereotype can they...

back to the topic at hand, half-orcs get no lovin.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 29, 2006)

*Janx, did you somehow the moderator warnings not to discuss the thread title's semantics and etymology? Please focus on the half-orc, and not the word "gyp."*


----------



## Jhulae (Dec 29, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually in some scenarios, it can be quite powerful.
> 
> One of the best mid-level tactics is to cast Greater Invisibility and then each round, fire off an offensive spell and move upwards of 30 feet.
> 
> ...




Except if the caster moves 30' upwind... or has a fly spell and flies upwards.. 

Let's face it.. by the time that an enemy caster has improved invisibility, the party caster should have See Invisibility (since that's only a 2nd level spell), which negates the advantage of the invisible caster even more so than Scent supposedly does.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 30, 2006)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Except if the caster moves 30' upwind... or has a fly spell and flies upwards..




Moving 30' upwind is still within the upwind 60' range of Scent.

And regardless, the creature with Scent still can determine the direction in which the caster moved with a Move action.

The Track DC for following a creature with Scent is 10.



			
				Jhulae said:
			
		

> Let's face it.. by the time that an enemy caster has improved invisibility, the party caster should have See Invisibility (since that's only a 2nd level spell), which negates the advantage of the invisible caster even more so than Scent supposedly does.




Let's face it. Most characters (PCs and NPC creatures and monsters) do not have See Invisibility. Even characters who do have it might not have it prepared or might not have time to cast it.

Scent is not overwhelming. But, it can effectively negate or minimize the power of a 4th level spell: Greater Invisibility. How many core racial abilities can nearly negate a 4th level spell in some circumstances?

And, Scent can also help against some other illusions as well (i.e. ones without a olfactory component like Silent Image or Minor Image).


----------



## Darklone (Dec 30, 2006)

Well, I wouldn't consider the possibility to get Scent as a feat as too strong. Half-orcs don't get many feats, taking Scent means waiting for level 6 for Cleave 

Ok, Fighter levels help.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 30, 2006)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Except if the caster moves 30' upwind... or has a fly spell and flies upwards..
> 
> Let's face it.. by the time that an enemy caster has improved invisibility, the party caster should have See Invisibility (since that's only a 2nd level spell), which negates the advantage of the invisible caster even more so than Scent supposedly does.



 See Invisibility won't help against a simple Hide check, and scent does.


----------



## Legildur (Dec 31, 2006)

Interestingly, in my games there is nearly always a half-orc barbarian.  Typically we use a fairly generous rolling method that generates PB scores of 36+.  Theoretically, it doesn't make senses to choose half-orc over dwarf for a barbarian with scores in this range, but various players invariably do.  The bonus to Strength and the higher movement rate are seen as a sufficient advantage for a character that spends the bulk of its time in melee combat - that, and the nasty appearance factor.

I have a half-orc bbr/ftr/clr (of Kord) in one game.  Common sense would have seen me take human (for the feat) or dwarf, but with a focus on using a spiked chain (yes, dumped a 15 into Int), then bonus to Str was a real boon for attack bonus, damage, opposed trip and disarm checks.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 31, 2006)

Confused, so you have a 20 str and a 13 int? Whats the point buy?


----------



## Legildur (Dec 31, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Confused, so you have a 20 str and a 13 int? Whats the point buy?



Used the E-tools program with the 'high powered' campaign rolling option.  We are allowed to roll 6 sets of abilities and choose the best set.  Usually get at least one 18 score in the 6 sets, but that isn't always the best set (depending on build).

And trust me, with what our DMs tend to throw at us, every little bit helps.  We still have a reasonable fatality rate (this is my second character in the World's Largest Dungeon after my human archer failed a 'save or die' saving throw).


----------



## Seeten (Dec 31, 2006)

give me 6 18's and all races look good. Isn't meaningful, tho


----------



## Votan (Dec 31, 2006)

I think the issue is what you comapre the Half-Orc to.  If you compare it to the best of the races (dwarf, for sure, and probably human) then it looks weak.  Compared to an average race it looks about right (Elf with the very situational weapon proficiencies that can be meaningless of the elf is a melee character and the weak constitution score).  Compared to an actually weak race (Half-Elf; just doesn't dominate everywhere and has abilities way weaker than either the human parent or the elf parent) then the Half-Orc looks okay as it at least is able to focus.  

So from a pwoer perspective it is about average as far as I can tell, maybe a bit less compared to popular choices


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 31, 2006)

Scent is a strong ability, easily worth 2 feats IMNSHO.

Scent gives amazing bonuses and synergies with Track + Survival skill.

There is really no hiding from the Ranger who can Spot + Listen + Scent + Track + get assistance from his Animal Companion.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 31, 2006)

Votan said:
			
		

> I think the issue is what you comapre the Half-Orc to.  If you compare it to the best of the races (dwarf, for sure, and probably human) then it looks weak.  Compared to an average race it looks about right (Elf with the very situational weapon proficiencies that can be meaningless of the elf is a melee character and the weak constitution score).  Compared to an actually weak race (Half-Elf; just doesn't dominate everywhere and has abilities way weaker than either the human parent or the elf parent) then the Half-Orc looks okay as it at least is able to focus.
> 
> So from a pwoer perspective it is about average as far as I can tell, maybe a bit less compared to popular choices




That is basically how I see it as well.

The designers rate movement bonuses/penalties as very valuable.  If you consider the most bonus-laden race and downplay its biggest penalty, then compare the Half-Orc against that race, well, you will inevitably find the Half-Orc disappointing.

Like the majority of races of the PHB, the Half-Orc works very well in its class/role niche and poorly outside of that niche.  The comfort zone happens to be a bit narrow for the Half-Orc, but I do not see the race as really much worse off than the Halfling or Elf or Half-Elf in that respect.

Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes have a lot going for them in the eyes of powergamers.  Everyone cannot be above average.


----------



## Legildur (Dec 31, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> give me 6 18's and all races look good. Isn't meaningful, tho



What's your point here?


----------



## Darklone (Dec 31, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> How about:
> 
> *Empty headed:* Half orcs have a +2 bonus against mind affecting spells and effects.
> 
> ...



Human raised trait:
*Turn tail and run:* + 5ft movement speed per round.


----------



## Lodow MoBo (Jan 1, 2007)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Many people feel Half Orcs are underpowered; they are wrong.
> 
> 
> The real penalty dwarves get isn't charisma, it's move rate.





This is countered by not having a penalty for move rate due to armor.  Medium armor would put a 30 base move to 20 anyway.  

Dwarfs are the only race that can tumble in platemail if you read the rule for tumble and wording for the armor not effecting move rate..


----------



## Darklone (Jan 1, 2007)

Lodow MoBo said:
			
		

> Dwarfs are the only race that can tumble in platemail if you read the rule for tumble and wording for the armor not effecting move rate..



Yeap. Considering every class uses either light or heavy armor, dwarves movement restriction is usually an advantage.


----------



## Endur (Jan 1, 2007)

Strength is the most important stat in combat.  That's why half-orcs (and orcs) are balanced as a LA+0 race.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 1, 2007)

Endur said:
			
		

> Strength is the most important stat in combat.  That's why half-orcs (and orcs) are balanced as a LA+0 race.




Orcs get double the Strength bonus and virtually the same set of penalties (slightly worse). If half-orcs are balanced at LA +0, then how can the more powerful orc be considered balanced at that LA?


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jan 1, 2007)

Endur said:
			
		

> Strength is the most important stat in combat.  That's why half-orcs (and orcs) are balanced as a LA+0 race.




Everybody claims that and nobody has any proof to back it up.


----------



## Seeten (Jan 1, 2007)

Endur said:
			
		

> Strength is the most important stat in combat.  That's why half-orcs (and orcs) are balanced as a LA+0 race.




I believe my statements above show that this is markedly false, and since wizards do more damage in combat with int, and Sorcerors do more with cha, why arent we doublepenalizing, or giving extra bonuses to races with cha penalties.

Or maybe we are, and thats why Dwarves are so godly.


----------



## Aaron L (Jan 1, 2007)

Votan said:
			
		

> I think the issue is what you comapre the Half-Orc to.  If you compare it to the best of the races (dwarf, for sure, and probably human) then it looks weak.  Compared to an average race it looks about right (Elf with the very situational weapon proficiencies that can be meaningless of the elf is a melee character and the weak constitution score).  Compared to an actually weak race (Half-Elf; just doesn't dominate everywhere and has abilities way weaker than either the human parent or the elf parent) then the Half-Orc looks okay as it at least is able to focus.
> 
> So from a pwoer perspective it is about average as far as I can tell, maybe a bit less compared to popular choices





I've alway thought that the idea behind balance was the idea that everything should be equal.

When some races are so apparently weaker than others that people have to point out that we are "comparing them to a stronger race" than that's unbalanced by definition, isn't it?


----------



## Klaus (Jan 1, 2007)

Half-orcs are underpowered not only when compared to dwarves and humans, but also to elves and halflings.

Half-Orcs get +2 Str. Elves get +2 Dex. Both are equally important in combat (Dex doubly so, since it helps defense and offense for archers and finessers).
Half-Orcs get Darkvision. Elves get Low-light vision and a free Search vs. secret doors.
Half-Orcs get Orc blood. Elves get immunity to magical sleep.
Half-Orcs get -2 Int. Elves get -2 Con. One reduces effectiveness in non-combat challenges, the other reduces staying power in combat (but the Dex bonus makes the elf harder to hit).
Half-Orcs get -2 Cha. Elves get +2 to Spot, Search and Listen, 3 very important skills.
Half-Orcs get... er... . Elves get four free Martial Weapon Proficiencies.


----------



## Seeten (Jan 2, 2007)

The reality is the strength attribute suffers from "Ohh shiny" syndrome, and is, in point of fact, no better than any other attribute. This leaves half-orcs with miserable stat mods, a single class, or at most, a pair of classes it excels at, and a host of options effectively closed off to the min maxer. They get nothing in return, either, even flavor wise. 

They are dumb, not scary or forceful, have no skill bonuses, no race defining features, and the additional penalty of "Orc Blood". So, unless you take Frankthedm's excellently thought out approach, Half-Orcs are definitively weak as a race. Slightly better than Kobold and worse than all other PHB races, even worse than the pitiful half-elf.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 2, 2007)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> Everybody claims that and nobody has any proof to back it up.




Balance cannot be proved one way or another.

Just like you cannot prove that Half-Orcs are an "inferior" core +0 race.

However, the advantages they have can be illustrated as per post #33.

+3 or +4 damage over other core races per successful hit is not weak. Whether it is balanced or not is debatable, but it is not insignificant.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 2, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> They are dumb, not scary or forceful, have no skill bonuses, no race defining features, and the additional penalty of "Orc Blood". So, unless you take Frankthedm's excellently thought out approach, Half-Orcs are definitively weak as a race. Slightly better than Kobold and worse than all other PHB races, even worse than the pitiful half-elf.




Not if what you compare them to is a Fighter or Barbarian of another race. Then, they do indeed shine brighter. Dwarves are the only race that even come close for Fighters or Barbarians, and even there, Half-Orcs win out in "the best defense is a good offense" strategy.


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 2, 2007)

Mark me down firmly in the "Strength is not an inherently better stat to have a bonus on" camp...


----------



## Seeten (Jan 2, 2007)

While I do not outright disagree that half-orcs make good barbs and passable fighters of a specific type, there is no balance argument why a +2 to Intimidate, Bluff and Survival skills, ala the Elf bonuses shouldnt be added. It doesnt increase their beatdown factor as a Barbarian or Fighter, and it does add flavor, and specific skill bonuses, like most other races have, and it increases their abilities as a Rogue, too.

In fact, Scarred Lands does just this with Half-Orc's and it is certainly not unbalancing. Half-Orc's simply don't get enough. I am not necessarily saying WotC should give them +2 con here. They simply need MORE than what they have, which is flavorless, unbalanced in the wrong direction attributes, and no particular direction.

You dont need to add further combat flash.


----------



## javcs (Jan 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not if what you compare them to is a Fighter or Barbarian of another race. Then, they do indeed shine brighter. Dwarves are the only race that even come close for Fighters or Barbarians, and even there, Half-Orcs win out in "the best defense is a good offense" strategy.



Only if you are using the exact same build, the 2h-strength PAer who doesn't expect to do much else. That's where half-orcs excel.

A properly built elf archer can put that 2h+PAing orc down with ease.
A properly build dwarf tank will absorb more than the 2h-PAer can dish out, while doing almost as much damage in return.
A properly built human almost anything comes with a free feat which means he's further down the feat chains/has more feat chains than the 2h-PAer, making him more versatile and probably equipped with more feats useful in a one on one, and more likely to be PrCed.

A Kobold fighter, though unlikely, is as fast, and significantly harder to hit, and is probably going to be a ranged specialist, and pretty good at it, with a better bonus to his attacks.

Halflings and gnomes probably aren't fighters or barbarians, but they'd be harder to hit, and have their own, wider niches to be in.


Pick an ECL, set of splatbooks, and statgen method, and I can build a fighter/barb from non-templated races other than the half-orc that are as good or better than your half-orc fighter/barb. Just about anybody could do it.
The point is, the half-orc can do well, in a limited set of roles, really only one or two, 2h and PA with some minor variations, whereas the other races can do as well or better in their own roles, and have more roles that they can fill reasonably well, while a half-orc can't really do much outside of the couple roles they have, and are only at their best with two classes from core, they're not even _that_ good with most non-core classes, the other races are good with almost all classes, both core and non-core. In addition, the other races all have small bonuses that, though useful in limited situations, are good. Half-orcs don't even get bonuses when fighting dwarves, elves, or any other traditional foes, heck, an elf is more intimidating than a half-orc

In all honesty, half-elves, widely considered one of the weakest of the PHB races, are better than half-orcs.

Personally, I wouldn't play a half-orc unless I absolutely had to, if one of my chars got reincarnated as a half-orc, I'd probably either roll up a brand new character or get reincarnated again.

I'm not saying that half-orcs need more ability bonuses, but I do agree that their ability score mods should be different, and that they should get some minor, fairly useless, flavor bonuses, perhaps familiarity with orc double axes, and a moderately significant bonus to Intimidate, among other things.


----------



## Fishbone (Jan 2, 2007)

No Charisma hit and 5 or 10 feet of extra movement.
Plenty of races move at 20 feet, 3 of which are core, why not one that can move at 35 or 40? And this would instantly make the Half Orc one of the best in the game with another class, the Paladin, and make them attractive in some sorcerous gish builds and with other things that aren't core like Battle Sorcerers/Hexblades etc.
That charisma hit doesn't really seem like a lot but it drastically limits a Half-Orcs options.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Jan 2, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> No Charisma hit and 5 or 10 feet of extra movement....That charisma hit doesn't really seem like a lot but it drastically limits a Half-Orcs options.



to me, CHA represents social graces, something an orc should be severely lacking in.  so, stat balance aside, it makes sense from a flavor perspective.


----------



## Zzyzx (Jan 2, 2007)

This may be off topic, because it is about fluff, but I like half-orcs because of their dumb-and-strong role, and am willing to pay a little in versatility to play one.  If I wanted to play anything besides a dumb-and-strong character, I wouldn't play a half-orc.  I think this is a valid design decision.  The fact that there is such a strong debate on racial power balance indicates to me that the "gyppness" is not clear cut.

And I too think that scent is a little strong for a bonus feat.  Making them eligible for scent (as above, with Wis 13 as prereq) is a good idea in my opinion.  I have always liked the idea of giving Endurance as a bonus feat for orcs and half-orcs, mostly because it makes the game more fun as we play it (less times out of armor, etc.)


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 2, 2007)

javcs said:
			
		

> A properly build dwarf tank will absorb more than the 2h-PAer can dish out, while doing almost as much damage in return.




Mathematically, this is just totally inaccurate.


If you create a Dwarf Tank with Two Handed weapon, they should have the same Dex, Con +2 advantage Dwarf, and Str +2 advantage Half-Orc.

So same AC, Half-Orc has +1 to hit +2 damage. If the Half-Orc power attacks for one, he does 3 or 4 points of damage more per successful hit.

This means that every successful hit takes out 3 or 4 levels of the Dwarf's Con bonus.

For example, the Half-Orc with 20 Str and 14 Con, Dwarf with 18 Str and 16 Con. The Half-Orc will be doing 2D6 + 9 damage (PA for 1 to get the same chance to hit) whereas the Dwarf will be doing 2D6 + 6 damage. The Half-Orc Barbarian has 14 hit points, the Dwarf does 13 hits of damage. The Dwarf Barbarian has 15 hit points, the Half-Orc does 16 damage. The Half-Orc is injured, the Dwarf is unconscious.


If you create a Dwarf Tank with Sword and Board, they should have the same Dex, Con +2 advantage Dwarf, and Str +2 advantage Half-Orc.

At low level, the Dwarf has +2 AC because of the large shield, but the Half-Orc is +1 to hit. This equates to a 5% difference.

So, if the Half-Orc has a 25% chance of hitting the Dwarf, the Dwarf has a 30% chance of hitting the Half-Orc.

However, the Half-Orc will be doing 2D6 + 1.5 Str damage whereas the Dwarf will be doing D8 + (Str-1) damage. If the Half-Orc has a Strength of 18, the Dwarf has a Str of 16. 25% * 13 points of damage is 4.25 average for the Half-Orc versus 30% * 7.5 = 2.25 damage for the Dwarf. The Half-Orc nearly doubles the average damage output.

As levels get higher, the damage output by the Half-Orc still exceeds that of the Dwarf.

Say, 11th level. Dwarf Fighter has AC 25 with +1 Dex, +2 Longsword, +2 Full Plate, and +2 Large Shield.

Half-Orc Fighter has AC 21 with +1 Dex, +2 Greatsword and +2 Full Plate.

Str 26 Con 18 Half-Orc (+4 Belt and +2 Amulet), Str 24 Con 20 Dwarf (same magic items)

Both have Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Hit points Half-Orc 109, Dwarf 120.

Full round attack, the Sword and Board Dwarf averages:

(95% * D8+11) + (80% * D8+11) + (55% * D8+11) = 35.65

The Half-Orc averages:

(90% * 2D6+16) + (65% * 2D6+16) + (40% * 2D6+16) = 44.85

3 Full Round attacks, the Half-Orc is still standing, the Dwarf is dead (not even unconscious on average).

Even if the Dwarf modifies his to hit with Power Attack to match the to hit chance of the Half-Orc, it becomes:

(90% * D8+14) + (65% * D8+14) + (40% * D8+14) = 36.075


As an offensive melee combatant, the Dwarf just does not match up to the two handed weapon Half-Orc.

As a defensive melee combatant (both hit points and saves versus spells), the Dwarf is better.


Pros and Cons. But in offensive two handed weapon melee, no core race beats the Half-Orc. And, that is why the race is balanced. It spikes over all other races for a specific role of character, but it is generally less favorable in most other roles.

One has to understand the mathematical advantage of Strength, Two Handed Weapons, and Power Attack to get how really advantageous +2 Strength actually is in the game.


----------



## Fishbone (Jan 2, 2007)

Eh, I think the emphasis on Charisma being thought of first and foremost as debonair, queen wooing sexual mojo is overstated and it has always been more about force of will and general personality. Dwarves get the Charisma hit not because they're uncouth, they get it because they are gruff bordering on rude and terse with their words. I see no reason why a half-orc would be like that. If anything I always thought of them as being far more barbarian/Germanic than Dwarves and charisma and battle skills were just about all that counted for a male warrior in those societies. I like to play Half-Orcs more like thanes than drunken bastards. Also, from a mechanical standpoint I see little reason for the Charisma hit. It essentially gimps them away from several attractive classes and severely limits their impact and use in a game world.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Mathematically, this is just totally inaccurate.
> 
> ...
> 
> One has to understand the mathematical advantage of Strength, Two Handed Weapons, and Power Attack to get how really advantageous +2 Strength actually is in the game.



Thanks Karinsdad. I know that stuff is true, but pretty often people don't believe you till you write it out.


			
				javcs said:
			
		

> A properly built elf archer can put that 2h+PAing orc down with ease.
> A properly build dwarf tank will absorb more than the 2h-PAer can dish out, while doing almost as much damage in return.
> A properly built human almost anything comes with a free feat which means he's further down the feat chains/has more feat chains than the 2h-PAer, making him more versatile and probably equipped with more feats useful in a one on one, and more likely to be PrCed.



Good jokes. A properly built elf archer? Which point buy? At which distance, how much cover. 300ft and the halforc has to carry his horse? And built with a houserule that allows him to add his Dex bonus to damage?

You claim a lot and nearly nothing matches my experience (or has been shown wrong by Karinsdad). Karinsdad even assumes one 18 and one 14 as attributes... as has been mentioned more than once, for "normal" point buys (as by the PHB) the halforc is much stronger than people are used to have him. Calculate the same examples with a 16, 14, 13... stat array and you'll see how far the halforc is ahead.


----------



## Seeten (Jan 2, 2007)

Karinsdad is right about low level play with a dwarf and an orc in a single class.

The half-orc is fine in a class thats dumping int, dumping cha, rps as a big dumb idiot, has no force of personality, and swings a sword at stuff, and has utterly 0 other capabilities. 

To some, because he gets an extra couple of points of dmg out of his strength, it means you need to gimp him in all other roles. This makes no sense to me. A barbarian doesnt care about charisma, beyond intimidate, so what does it matter? It simply means you're a gimped Paladin, a lousy Cleric, etc. This is equivalent to rping restrictions for in game power.

Giving bonus skills and bonus feats that dont up combat potential do not change the barbarian or fighter in combat, just like adding +2 spot/listen/search dont add much to an Elven Wizard.

I still dont buy the argument Karinsdad presents where a couple of points of extra damage means you need unbalanced stats. That means the extra int of sub races of elves equates to extra fireballs, which is many dice more damage than the 2-4 points of our mythical half-orc, and oddly, without the additional penalty the half-orc gets.


----------



## Seeten (Jan 2, 2007)

Karinsdad said:
			
		

> As an offensive melee combatant, the Dwarf just does not match up to the two handed weapon Half-Orc.
> 
> As a defensive melee combatant (both hit points and saves versus spells), the Dwarf is better.




And as a rogue, the Dwarf is better. And as a Wizard, the Dwarf is better. And as a Psion, the dwarf is better. And as a Dwarven Defender, better. Ranger? Dwarf. Need Skill points, Dwarf is better. Need to find cunning stonework? Dwarf. Poison? Dwarf. Saves? Dwarf. 

The pros of the half-orc are in one terribly limited situation, the cons are in vast wide gulfs.

The issue isnt that its marginally better for Barbarian, its that its completely suboptimal in every single other respect. A dwarf is actually GOOD in multiple classes. A Half Orc is most certainly not. I submit that there is absolutely no good reason for this. I have not seen any argument for why a half-orc ought to be atrocious at all non barbarian roles beyond "as a barbarian they do 2-4 extra dmg". 

Thats just not acceptable.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 2, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Karinsdad is right about low level play with a dwarf and an orc in a single class.
> 
> The half-orc is fine in a class thats dumping int, dumping cha, rps as a big dumb idiot, has no force of personality, and swings a sword at stuff, and has utterly 0 other capabilities.




Total nonsense.

Being -1 to Cha skills and -1 skill point per level does not equate to a big dumb idiot.

And, I gave an 11th level Fighter example. 11th level is not low level play.



			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> To some, because he gets an extra couple of points of dmg out of his strength, it means you need to gimp him in all other roles. This makes no sense to me. A barbarian doesnt care about charisma, beyond intimidate, so what does it matter? It simply means you're a gimped Paladin, a lousy Cleric, etc. This is equivalent to rping restrictions for in game power.




Wisdom is not a stat that gets hit by Half-Orcs.

Half-Orcs make great Clerics, especially Clerics of War Deities.

For one Turn Undead and a few skill points and a mere -1 at Cha based skills, they get to whomp on enemies.

Half-Orcs also make good Rogues, good Druids, good Rangers, etc. They make slightly sub-par Bards, Paladins, Wizards, or Sorcerers. Every other core class, they do fine in. They do fine in most classes that actually get into melee combat (and ranged combat with Strength bows).

Darkvision alone makes them great as adventurers.


When one actually looks at the math, only power gamers think they are really an inferior core race.

"Oh no, my Half-Orc has one less skill rank per level over your Elf."  

When the Half-Orc is fighting the Elf in a totally dark room, guess who wins.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> When the Half-Orc is fighting the Elf in a totally dark room, guess who wins.




Yes, but that situation is kind of irrelevant because it's crafted to be extremely in the half-orc's favor. Put the same half-orc up against an elven rogue in a dimly lit area with lots of brush for cover and this time the half-orc's going to lose. The elf's got the skill points and Dex to hide and sneak attack the half-orc, who can't afford to invest in Spot, all day.

For what it's worth, I think Strength is a marginally better stat than most because it's useful in pretty much any melee even once the spell-casters are out of any of their spells with DCs increased by good mental stats. But it's really only a marginal benefit overall that will ultimately become less important as the characters level up and gain other means of getting that extra +1 to hit and damage (+ a bit more if power attacking with a 2-handed weapon).
By contrast, the effect of high intelligence grows with every level. That's nothing to sneeze at, particularly with a skill-based character.

Ultimately, I think I'd rather not see any character receive much of a charisma penalty, including the half-orc. Why should a half-orc or dwarf have less personality? Penalties to interaction skills would be better. Then we could wipe out the half-orc's second stat penalty in favor of penalties to diplomacy, bluff, and information gathering.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 2, 2007)

Halforcs are great with any class where multiclassing with barbarian helps, e.g. rogue, cleric, fighter and even bard. I've even seen strong halforc paladins. Ok, their saves and turning wasn't so nice, but they hit harder.

And please... Karinsdad and my arguments didn't mean to say the halforc is stronger than others, just that he's not so horribly underpowered as many seem to assume.

Btw: If there's one race with a charisma penalty, it should be the halforc. But that's a matter of the setting and should be handled in the setting rules. You're right that it doesn't necessarily belong into the core rules. Just as the iconic gods...


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 2, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> And as a rogue, the Dwarf is better. And as a Wizard, the Dwarf is better. And as a Psion, the dwarf is better. And as a Dwarven Defender, better. Ranger? Dwarf. Need Skill points, Dwarf is better. Need to find cunning stonework? Dwarf. Poison? Dwarf. Saves? Dwarf.
> 
> The pros of the half-orc are in one terribly limited situation, the cons are in vast wide gulfs.




This is an overreaction.

A Half-Orc Rogue can be better than a Dwarf Rogue because his Sneak Attack damage can be greater. 

8 skill ranks per level versus 9 skill ranks per level does not break a character.

The idea with an offensive race is to take out the enemy before one has to make too many saving throws.


----------



## Legildur (Jan 2, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> The pros of the half-orc are in one terribly limited situation, the cons are in vast wide gulfs.



Terribly limited situation?  You must be playing a different type of game than what I do.  Across multiple daily encounters with numerous attack rolls (and opposed Strength checks of various types), the additional Strength bonus can really add up both in successful attacks and damage dealt.

This doesn't include other Strength related activities that may be required out of combat (including encumbrance).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 2, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Yes, but that situation is kind of irrelevant because it's crafted to be extremely in the half-orc's favor. Put the same half-orc up against an elven rogue in a dimly lit area with lots of brush for cover and this time the half-orc's going to lose. The elf's got the skill points and Dex to hide and sneak attack the half-orc, who can't afford to invest in Spot, all day.




Going to lose???

Is the Half-Orc a Rogue as well? If so, his Spot rolls might be just fine.

And if the Half-Orc is a combatant type like a Fighter or Barbarian, even though the Elf Rogue does a lot of damage with his initial attack, after that, he's toast (low hit points against a high Strength character). He can rarely "re-hide" (assuming he does not have Hide in Plain Sight or other unusual abilities).



> If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide.




In such a scenario, the Elf Rogue will usually lose instead.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Jan 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A Half-Orc Rogue can be better than a Dwarf Rogue because his Sneak Attack damage can be greater.
> 
> 8 skill ranks per level versus 9 skill ranks per level does not break a character.



more damage from a high STR score does not a good rogue make.  the ability to hide and move silently does, and those things come from skill points.  while one skill point per level may not _break _a character, it certainly doesn't make things any easier to make a viable PC in a skill-intensive class.


----------



## Endur (Jan 2, 2007)

In D&D melee combat, strength is by far and away the most important stat.  It affects to hit chance and damage.  It also affects grapples, bull rushes, disarm, sunder, overruns, and other special options.

More strength is better.  Half-orcs get the most strengh of the races in the PHB.  They are going to be the best in melee combat (on offense at least).

Dwarves are better on defense.  

In a party game, where one player is tanking for the rest of the party, dwarves make better tanks because of their higher con and saving throws, but they don't put out as much damage as the half-orcs.

In a hack and slash game, where you want to see how how many enemies your individual character slays, you want to be a half-orc.

Obviously, once you get out of melee combat, other races and character classes get a change to shine (Bards, Sorcerors, etc.).


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Jan 3, 2007)

Endur said:
			
		

> In D&D melee combat, strength is by far and away the most important stat.  It affects to hit chance and damage.  It also affects grapples, bull rushes, disarm, sunder, overruns, and other special options.
> 
> More strength is better.  Half-orcs get the most strengh of the races in the PHB.  They are going to be the best in melee combat (on offense at least).
> 
> In a hack and slash game, where you want to see how how many enemies your individual character slays, you want to be a half-orc.



and in a non-hack-n-slash game, the half-orc is useless.  different people play different games.  i run skill-intensive, RP-heavy campaigns, where combat makes up about 20% of the game, if that.  in any situation besides combat, half-orcs get the short end of the stick.  elves get bonuses to spot, listen, and search and that neat secret doorway thing.  gnomes get bonuses to alchemy checks and listen checks.  halflings get bonuses to climb, listen, jump, and move silently.  dwarves get appraise bonuses, craft bonuses, _and _stonecunning.  even half-elves get bonuses to gather info and diplomacy.  yes, the half-orc is a melee machine, and if all you're doing in your game is picking fights with BBEGs, you'll have a good time playing one.  if not, you're screwed.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 3, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But it's really only a marginal benefit overall that will ultimately become less important as the characters level up and gain other means of getting that extra +1 to hit and damage (+ a bit more if power attacking with a 2-handed weapon).



In my experience, marginal bonuses to hit are almost always important.  Every little bit you can squeeze out.  It helps the primary attack against high-AC opponents, and it helps the iterative attacks in cases where the primary is missing only on a 1.  Even at high levels, the fighters will still "miss by 1" sometimes.


----------



## Seeten (Jan 3, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Terribly limited situation?  You must be playing a different type of game than what I do.  Across multiple daily encounters with numerous attack rolls (and opposed Strength checks of various types), the additional Strength bonus can really add up both in successful attacks and damage dealt.
> 
> This doesn't include other Strength related activities that may be required out of combat (including encumbrance).




I must be playing a different game than all of you.

In my games, the Clerics are casting game breaking spells, the Mages tossing game breaking spells, and the Half-Orc Barbarians are running around the battlefield trying desperately to get a swing in before the next guy explodes in a shower of fire and lightning. The mage has a 22 int, if he was a half-orc, that'd be an 18 int, by the by, and I guess while in some games those spells make no difference, last I checked, if I add up a scorching ray, fireball, and magic missile, it does a whole messload more damage than our "half-orc with 2 strength more than the dwarf" in our powergamer example.

Also, I am not saying I'm not a powergamer, I most certainly am, and thats why I invariably played elf in 2nd ed, and Human in 3rd.

Half-Orc Barbarian I got stuck with in a current campaign, and their pure suck factor is off the charts.


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 3, 2007)

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say that 1/2 Orcs are _horribly_ unerpowered copmpared to other PHB races, but I would say that they are both mechanically and flavour-wise _poor_ compared to the abilities of the other "standard" races. (Note: in my own campaign I drop the Int penalty, and give them a racial bonus to Intimidate).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 3, 2007)

AbeTheGnome said:
			
		

> more damage from a high STR score does not a good rogue make.  the ability to hide and move silently does, and those things come from skill points.  while one skill point per level may not _break _a character, it certainly doesn't make things any easier to make a viable PC in a skill-intensive class.




It depends on the role of the Rogue.

But, 8 skill points per level is still a LOT.

Hide, Move Silently, Search, Spot, and Listen all maxed out.

That still leaves 3 skill ranks per level for a variety of other skills.


Rogues get in combat just like everyone else, but they are totally dependent on their combat skills. They have no spells.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 3, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I must be playing a different game than all of you.
> 
> In my games, the Clerics are casting game breaking spells, the Mages tossing game breaking spells, and the Half-Orc Barbarians are running around the battlefield trying desperately to get a swing in before the next guy explodes in a shower of fire and lightning.




If your PC Clerics and Mages are exploding the opposition that the Half-Orc Barbarian is fighting, it is not the Barbarian with the problem.

This sounds like a player issue, not a game issue.


----------



## Seeten (Jan 3, 2007)

I could say the same things about many of your posts, but I wont. In short, the dmg a barbarian does is not equal to the damage of mages or psions or clerics, no matter who you try to blame it on, the people I play with, or not.

You know why people dont claim Fighters are the most powerful class in D&D? Because they arent.

Penalizing races that make good fighters is ridiculous. I'm done with this thread. You're entitled to your opinions, and welcome to them also. I don't share them.


----------



## Endur (Jan 3, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I must be playing a different game than all of you.
> 
> Half-Orc Barbarian I got stuck with in a current campaign, and their pure suck factor is off the charts.




Sounds like a different game.

I played a half-orc barbarian with a 20 str at 1st level.  Useless mental stats, but for his first combat of the day (rage) he had a 24 str.  That meant +7 to hit with his greatsword for 2d6 +2 pa +10 str = 2d6 +12 damage or average 19 damage.  

The balanced dwarven fighter had a +4 to hit with damage of 1d10 +2 or average 7.5.  

The difference on offense was incredibly noticable.  As the levels increase, add some buff spells from party casters on the half-orc barbarian, and the damage really goes up (Greater magic Weapon, Bulls Strength, Prayer, Bardic songs) and combine with cleave and great cleave and who needs fireball.


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 3, 2007)

Endur said:
			
		

> I played a half-orc barbarian with a 20 str at 1st level.  Useless mental stats, but for his first combat of the day (rage) he had a 24 str.  That meant +7 to hit with his greatsword for 2d6 +2 pa +10 str = 2d6 +12 damage or average 19 damage.



Well, for starters, comparing Barbarians of any race to Fighters is literally apples and oranges.

Let me do my own comparison here:

A.) 1st lvl 1/2 Orc Barb, 20 STR (24 while raging), Power Attack; greatsword

B.) 1st lvl Human Barb, 18 STR (22 while raging), Power Attack, Cleave (human bonus feat); greatsword

While raging, A strikes at +8, +7 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+10 (2d6+12 for PA).

Same situation, B strikes at +7, +6 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+9 (2d6 +11 for PA).

(This assumes I haven't botched any calculations).

Oh, and if B manages to drop his target, he also gets a free attack on another adjascent enemy...


----------



## Legildur (Jan 3, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Half-Orc Barbarian I got stuck with in a current campaign, and their pure suck factor is off the charts.



Sounds to me like the style of play doesn't suit you.    Barbarians are a lot of fun.  Admittedly, most of my 3.x edition play has been in the sub 15th level range.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 3, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I must be playing a different game than all of you.
> 
> In my games, the Clerics are casting game breaking spells, the Mages tossing game breaking spells, and the Half-Orc Barbarians are running around the battlefield trying desperately to get a swing in ...
> 
> ...



Looks like you have missed all these "Mages suck in 3rd edition, our fighters/barbarians waste all enemies!" threads in the last years. Either it's a player issue or your type of game does not have enough encounters per day. By the rules, D&D should be rather balanced.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 3, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Well, for starters, comparing Barbarians of any race to Fighters is literally apples and oranges.
> 
> Let me do my own comparison here:
> 
> ...



Now take the stats as by the normal point buy and you'll have the halforc with str 18 and the human with str 16. Much bigger difference.


----------



## Felnar (Jan 3, 2007)

minor nitpicks but
*KarinsDad* i think you forgot the +1 attack vs orcs in your halforc vs dwarf calculations
(circumstantial, but dwarves get combat bonuses versus orcs, goblinoids, giants, orges, trolls)
and
why does the sword and board dwarf fighter use a +2 longsword when they could've have a +2 dwarven waraxe
---------------------------

in melee, i think halforcs are balanced enough with humans but i'd vote weaker than dwarves.
outside combat, they are definitely subpar

against brute type enemies maybe that extra few damage is better
but against...
ranged attackers? (dwaves movement = halforcs in medium and heavy armor)
spellcasters? (dwarf/elf spell resists)
lots of commonmonsters? (orcs, goblinoids, giants, orges, trolls)

outside of combat for...
skill monkeying? (one less maxed skill; half the rogue skill list tied to int/cha)
dungeoncrawling? (stonecunning grants *passive search checks against stonework traps*, elves get passive checks, racial penalty to search vs racial bonus)
social/knowledge skills? (skill checks fail by "just one" just like melee attacks; opposed checks)

add on top of all that
halforcs have the least flavor of the races and what flavor they have is negative (uncivilized, associated with evil race), depending on the DM style and campaign setting

halforcs do one thing great (twohanded weapons), a couple things well (non-CE fighter/ranger), and tons of things worse than all the other races
do players ever say "whew, good thing i'm a halforc"?

i dont think halforcs are vastly underpowered, but they're sure stuck in one niche
halforcs are unsuitted to 3 of the 4 archtype party roles (most/all other races are better)
low point-buys (25-28) are important for keeping RAW halforc close to the other races


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 3, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Now take the stats as by the normal point buy and you'll have the halforc with str 18 and the human with str 16. Much bigger difference.



Well, our group doesn't use point buy or arrays, so I do often forget about the impact they can have (BTW, I'm not quite sure how would the point buy for the 1/2 orc and human differ ?)...

But anyway, lets see:

A.) 1st lvl 1/2 Orc Barb, 18 STR (22 while raging), Power Attack; greatsword

B.) 1st lvl Human Barb, 16 STR (20 while raging), Power Attack, Cleave (human bonus feat); greatsword

While raging, A strikes at +7, +6 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+9 (2d6+11 for PA).

Same situation, B strikes at +6, +5 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+7 (2d6 +9 for PA).

So, yes, indeed, the 1/2 Orc averages 2 points per hit more damage. I personally don't consider this game-breaking, or even deserving of an extra -2 to a stat. Throw in the Human's bonus feat (Cleave), all of a sudden the Human is potentially averaging a LOT more damage per round.

If you try hard enough, you can point out a situation where any stat outshines others. I don't think Strength is inherently a better ability to get a bonus on than others. If anything in the above examples, I think there is more of a problem with how Power Attack and two-handed fighting rules work than any stat bonuses.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 3, 2007)

See two pages before. The difference you just showed is Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation. Two feats, one of them a class special. Not gamebreaking? YMMV. Same for bards song in that General thread. A puny +1 makes a big difference.

Certainly the human has a big advantage with Cleave for level 1 and 2 or only for level 1 if the half-orc takes a fighter level... After that, the halforc is still in the lead.

But why don't we compare the halforc barbarian to an elf barbarian? We compared with human and dwarf, the two best races in 3rd edition. And still the halforc is better with some drawbacks. Compare him with gnomes and halflings or half-elves.

To me that's not an underpowered race. 
- Without flavor: yes.
- Without many options: yes. Barbarian or barbarian multiclass all the way.
- Weak: no. Far from it. At least as long normal orcs or half-ogres are not allowed.



> If you try hard enough, you can point out a situation where any stat outshines others. I don't think Strength is inherently a better ability to get a bonus on than others. If anything in the above examples, I think there is more of a problem with how Power Attack and two-handed fighting rules work than any stat bonuses.



We don't "try hard enough", these examples have been provided to counter the argument that a halforc would be weaker than a dwarf even in his niche: Melee combat. 

We didn't try to show that strength is a better ability, we showed that it's the best ability in melee.


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 3, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> See two pages before. The difference you just showed is Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation. Two feats, one of them a class special. Not gamebreaking? YMMV. Same for bards song in that General thread. A puny +1 makes a big difference.
> 
> Certainly the human has a big advantage with Cleave for level 1 and 2 or only for level 1 if the half-orc takes a fighter level... After that, the halforc is still in the lead.
> 
> ...



I don't neccessarily disagree with any of your points, but I just don't get why one race above and beyond all other core (PHB) races gets a +2 to one stat, and a -2 to *two*. Not to mention the amazing lack of "windrow dressing" abilities like Stonecunning, skill bonuses, weapon familiarity, save bonuses etc. that the other races get in one form or another. To me, it just doesn't add up - I can't help but feel by the RAW, 1/2 Orcs get shortchanged.

Still, that's what houserules are for...


----------



## Darklone (Jan 3, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Well, our group doesn't use point buy or arrays, so I do often forget about the impact they can have (BTW, I'm not quite sure how would the point buy for the 1/2 orc and human differ ?)...



Easy. Take 25 or 28 Point buy (Normal by the PHB, that's why most groups with much higher PB think the halforc is screwed: The race has been balanced for PB 25). If a human fighter wants to have decent stats (e.g. Int 13 for C-Expert or Dex 15 for TWF to use all his feats), he'll most likely end up with a str of 16. 

The halforc has two advantages:
- Most likely he doesn't need his mental stats too high since he has not that many feats nor will he take classes that need Int or Cha too high. So he will most likely put more points into Str, Dex and Con.
- That +2 to strength allows him to buy a strength 18 for 10 points. The human would have to pay 16 points. Strength 18 is huge because of the half strength bonus to THF or TWF fighters.

Str 16: 
THF (greatsword): 2d6+4 
TWF (longsword/shortsword): 1d8+3, 1d6+1

Str 18: 
THF (greatsword): 2d6+6
TWF (longsword/shortsword): 1d8+4, 1d6+2

The addition to hit shouldn't be forgotten. If you calculate the average damage/round, you'll see it's a huge advantage.

So, let's assume the unlikely case that both take the same stat array we end up with the halforc with str 18 and the human with str 16 or even 14.

Same effect had been discussed with the half-ogre... even with his stat penalties he might end up at higher mental abilities at point buy systems because the humans/dwarves have to pay dearly for the high attributes.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 3, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I don't neccessarily disagree with any of your points, but I just don't get why one race above and beyond all other core (PHB) races gets a +2 to one stat, and a -2 to *two*. Not to mention the amazing lack of "windrow dressing" abilities like Stonecunning, skill bonuses, weapon familiarity, save bonuses etc. that the other races get in one form or another. To me, it just doesn't add up - I can't help but feel by the RAW, 1/2 Orcs get shortchanged.
> 
> Still, that's what houserules are for...



See the first pages of the thread. I don't think halforcs are cool. I guess I will give them FrankDMs special abilities. What we try to explain here is: Why do they have these penalties?

The reason is simple: Because str rocks in melee much more than any other attribute in it's own special area and because the designers assumed that halforc players didn't care for their "three dump stats".


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 3, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> A.) 1st lvl 1/2 Orc Barb, 18 STR (22 while raging), Power Attack; greatsword
> 
> B.) 1st lvl Human Barb, 16 STR (20 while raging), Power Attack, Cleave (human bonus feat); greatsword
> 
> ...




In the dark? You consider Darkvision not equal to or even greater than a feat?

How about considering these two PCs when they have the exact same to hit (pulled straight from your example above):

A strikes at +6 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+11.
B strikes at +6 and hits for 2d6+7.

So, A does 4 points per hit more. Do you really think that this is not equal to the Cleave feat? Do you really think that this will not give A an extra action once in a while (i.e. A takes out his opponent, but B is still fighting his, so A gets to do something other than fighting his opponent on the next round)? Plus, A can swing at +7 if necessary. B cannot.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 3, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Going to lose???
> 
> Is the Half-Orc a Rogue as well? If so, his Spot rolls might be just fine.
> 
> And if the Half-Orc is a combatant type like a Fighter or Barbarian, even though the Elf Rogue does a lot of damage with his initial attack, after that, he's toast (low hit points against a high Strength character). He can rarely "re-hide" (assuming he does not have Hide in Plain Sight or other unusual abilities).




My _point_ is that any situation can be contrived in which one character is going to win over the other without breaking much of a sweat. A half-orc vs an elf in the dark is one of them. You've selected a situation in which one character is highly disadvantaged compared to another and using it as one of your arguments that the half-orc isn't underpowered. Against any PC race except a dwarf, the half-orc has the advantage in the dark because he doesn't have to roll miss chances due to full concealment.


----------



## kayn99 (Jan 3, 2007)

The part of this discussion that we all leave out is the type of game that is being played.  We (my group) run a very detailed game where there is a lot of role playing and the half orc comes up very short in it.  The double minuses really hurt it in addition it is also a Grim and Gritty rules set (alternative rules).  In a hack and slash or dungeon crawl, the half orc does very well.  I think you need to figure out what you will be doing with the half orc to see how it does.  

Kayn


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 3, 2007)

Felnar said:
			
		

> minor nitpicks but
> *KarinsDad* i think you forgot the +1 attack vs orcs in your halforc vs dwarf calculations
> (circumstantial, but dwarves get combat bonuses versus orcs, goblinoids, giants, orges, trolls)
> and
> why does the sword and board dwarf fighter use a +2 longsword when they could've have a +2 dwarven waraxe




Good point.

I'll post the corrected version:


If you create a Dwarf Tank with Two Handed weapon, they should have the same Dex, Con +2 advantage Dwarf, and Str +2 advantage Half-Orc.

So same AC, Half-Orc has +2 damage for Strength.

This means that every successful hit takes out 2 levels of the Dwarf's Con bonus.

For example, the Half-Orc with 20 Str and 14 Con, Dwarf with 18 Str and 16 Con. The Half-Orc will be doing 2D6 + 7 damage whereas the Dwarf will be doing 2D6 + 6 damage. The Half-Orc Barbarian has 14 hit points, the Dwarf does 13 hits of damage. The Dwarf Barbarian has 15 hit points, the Half-Orc does 14 damage. This is fairly even against each other. However, if the Dwarf is not fighting a Half-Orc, he is -1 more to hit (which means the Half-Orc averages 2 more points of damage than the Dwarf with same to hit Power Attack). And, as levels go up, the Half-Orc's Str will get to 22 where he does 2 more points of damage than the Dwarf (for a total of 4 more damage if fighting a non-Orc opponent with the same to hit).


If you create a Dwarf Tank with Sword and Board, they should have the same Dex, Con +2 advantage Dwarf, and Str +2 advantage Half-Orc.

At low level, the Dwarf has +2 AC because of the large shield and +1 to hit Orcs, but the Half-Orc is +1 to hit. This equates to a 10% difference.

So, if the Half-Orc has a 25% chance of hitting the Dwarf, the Dwarf has a 35% chance of hitting the Half-Orc.

However, the Half-Orc will be doing 2D6 + 1.5 Str damage whereas the Dwarf will be doing D10 + (Str-1) damage. If the Half-Orc has a Strength of 18, the Dwarf has a Str of 16. 25% * 13 points of damage is 3.25 average for the Half-Orc versus 35% * 8.5 = 2.975 damage for the Dwarf.

But at low level, the chances to hit would typically be higher than 25% and 35%. They would tend to be more like 45% and 55%. There, the Half-Orc does even more average damage (5.85 versus 4.675).

As levels get higher, the damage output by the Half-Orc still exceeds that of the Dwarf.

Say, 11th level. Dwarf Fighter has AC 25 with +1 Dex, +2 Dwarven Waraxe, +2 Full Plate, and +2 Large Shield.

Half-Orc Fighter has AC 21 with +1 Dex, +2 Greatsword and +2 Full Plate.

Str 26 Con 18 Half-Orc (+4 Belt and +2 Amulet), Str 24 Con 20 Dwarf (same magic items)

Both have Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Hit points Half-Orc 109, Dwarf 120.

Full round attack, the Sword and Board Dwarf averages:

(95% * D10+11) + (85% * D10+11) + (60% * D10+11) = 37.95 *1.1 (criticals) = 41.745

The Half-Orc averages:

(90% * 2D6+16) + (65% * 2D6+16) + (40% * 2D6+16) = 44.85 *1.1 (criticals) = 49.335

The Half-Orc does 7+ more points of damage on average than the Dwarf. The Dwarf only has 11 more hit points than the Half-Orc, so after two full round attacks, the Dwarf has fewer hit points remaining than the Half-Orc.

Note: the Dwarf does an average of 3.5 more points of damage on a critical (3D10 + 33 > 4D6+32), however, the Half-Orc criticals nearly twice as often (10% of the time * lesser to hit chance versus 5% of the time * greater to hit chance).

Also, if the Dwarf is not fighting the Half-Orc or some other goblin type, he is at -1 to hit (as compared to the numbers here where he is fighting the Half-Orc).

Plus, against Damage Reduction, the Half-Orc shines. Against DR 10, he averages 13 points of damage per hit. The Dwarf averages 6.5 points of damage per hit.


All in all, the Half-Orc is still the better offensive fighting machine. He will last longer in combat not because he has a lot of hit points (the Dwarf has slightly more), but because he will take out opponents faster.


----------



## kayn99 (Jan 3, 2007)

why do we keep having the dwarf and half orc fighting each other.  You should have them both be fighting a static target or create a target.  This way, you can see how they both preform over the long and short term.  They both should be Barbarians (the dwarf and HO), and have the same stat set.  The only difference should be the advantages the base race gives and the different builds with feats.  


Kayn


----------



## javcs (Jan 3, 2007)

kayn99 said:
			
		

> why do we keep having the dwarf and half orc fighting each other.  You should have them both be fighting a static target or create a target.  This way, you can see how they both preform over the long and short term.  They both should be Barbarians (the dwarf and HO), and have the same stat set.  The only difference should be the advantages the base race gives and the different builds with feats.
> 
> 
> Kayn



Because of the fact that if you use the exact same build, which you shouldn't if you're comparing optimizations, you'll get different results for different builds. Unless you use a completely neutral build type (which is rather difficult to do).
My point earlier was that half-orcs do well, in a specific build, possibly the best in that build type, particularly at lower levels, but isn't very versatile in the types of builds he can do. However, the other races do as well in their own specific builds, and are still good in other builds. Furthermore, the other races are more useful outside of pure combat situations and those requiring raw strength, admittedly, most of the bonuses the other races get are minor and mostly flavor oriented, but half-orcs get nothing.

If you look at more aspects of race, how many race specific PrCs/feats are there for half-orcs? I can't think of many offhand, while almost every other race has a respectable number of PrCs/feats for them, some of which are specifically anti-orc.


----------



## brehobit (Jan 3, 2007)

As others have said, half-orcs just need some minor misc. bonuses.

+2 saves vs. disease and poison
+2 to intimidate
rapid healing of hitpoints (1.5x natural healing rate of hit points only)
+2 to survival checks for self survival only.


----------



## smootrk (Jan 3, 2007)

brehobit said:
			
		

> As others have said, half-orcs just need some minor misc. bonuses.
> 
> +2 saves vs. disease and poison
> +2 to intimidate
> ...



I agree.  Half-Orcs are lacking, but a few minor bonuses covering a few aspects of their Orcish heritage will go a long way in making them interesting - note that standard Orcs may need the same or better treatment as well.  

Some interesting tweaks on current rules could go a long way in making them better suited for some roles.  For instance, isn't there a Feat that allows a Dwarf to use CON instead of CHA for Sorcerers?  Make a similar feat for Half-Orcs except geared towards Warlocks or a Orcish style of Warmage.  Tweak the Wilderness Rogue (UA variant) so that it appeals to Orcs/Half-Orcs with abilities based on Endurance (CON) rather than nimbleness (dex).  Tweak Orc Deities so that CHA is not used for Turn/Rebuking, but rather STR instead done with a ferocious roar.

In other words, there are always some houserule options, or even new Feats that can be made up to effect certain beneficial changes that could re-balance the Half-Orc.  Just as the Races of Stone had many feats/options that catered to Dwarves (or whatever Race/Book combo you want to compare), the intrepid DM could make up new features to enhance a player's options who wants to play an Orc.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 3, 2007)

kayn99 said:
			
		

> why do we keep having the dwarf and half orc fighting each other.  You should have them both be fighting a static target or create a target.  This way, you can see how they both preform over the long and short term.  They both should be Barbarians (the dwarf and HO), and have the same stat set.  The only difference should be the advantages the base race gives and the different builds with feats.




It doesn't matter.

If the Half-Orc does more damage against the Dwarf when the Dwarf gets a +1 bonus to hit the Half-Orc, it is also going to do more damage against other targets than the Dwarf will.

The advantage the Half-Orc has is more damage in the same period of time (and movement if not in heavier armor).

The advantage the Dwarf has is an additional skill point per level, slightly better hit points, and slightly better saves against spells.

So, if offense is your style, take the Half-Orc. He will typically wipe out more opponents in a shorter period of time, saving party resources.

If defense is your style, take the Dwarf. He will not do as much damage in the same amount of time, but occasionally he will survive a spell attack or survive a lot of damage easier.


----------



## Endur (Jan 3, 2007)

javcs said:
			
		

> If you look at more aspects of race, how many race specific PrCs/feats are there for half-orcs? I can't think of many offhand, while almost every other race has a respectable number of PrCs/feats for them, some of which are specifically anti-orc.




Half-orcs (and only half-orcs) have access to the broken Tribal Protector PRC from Sword & Fist.

Although I do agree, that in general, half-orcs should get access to a few more orcish feats.

But half-orcs should be compared to half-elves for feat access, not to elves.  The equivalent of elven feat access would be orcs.


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 3, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In the dark? You consider Darkvision not equal to or even greater than a feat?



Maybe, but then again, Dwarves get Darkvision, +2 to Con, and only one -2 stat, rther than two.


> How about considering these two PCs when they have the exact same to hit (pulled straight from your example above):
> 
> A strikes at +6 if using PA, and hits for 2d6+11.
> B strikes at +6 and hits for 2d6+7.
> ...



Well, if you want to tip the scales by saying one is using PA and the other not. But I will acknowledge in that example A has a +1 to hit and +2 damage.


> Do you really think that this is not equal to the Cleave feat? Do you really think that this will not give A an extra action once in a while (i.e. A takes out his opponent, but B is still fighting his, so A gets to do something other than fighting his opponent on the next round)? Plus, A can swing at +7 if necessary. B cannot.



Well, since we are now talking about 2 points rather than 4, then no, I don't really consider it the equal of the Cleave feat...

In short, my basic position is that Strength is not some "be all and end all" stat that warrants penalties on two other stats. In the specific examples given, yes, Strength is very valuable. In an infinite number of other examples that could be presented, any stat could be shown to be superior *in that given situation*...


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 3, 2007)

People are noting that the Half-Orc is better on offense while the dwarf is better at defense. What they are neglecting is that the defense applies ALL the time.

If I'm fighting a spellcaster, doing one more damage with a slightly better chance to hit doesn't matter. Surviving that fireball does. The half-orc does more damage, but oh look now he's dominated..and that damage is going against the party. The dwarf's +2 to all spells and SLA is such a huge bonus.

The half-orc gets a small boost in an area he's good out, while the dwarf gets many benefits in places he's not great at or even weak at. That's worth a lot more to me.


----------



## Fishbone (Jan 3, 2007)

Well I think we are arguing about the effectiveness of the Dwarf versus the Half Orc in a manner that only shows off the Half Orc's good side. Its strange to see Half Orc apologists decry their weakness and then plead for a little something more.
Strength is not the be all end all, Dexterity is at least as important, but I don't see halflings and elves taking two -2s. The stat imbalance and lack of bonus to some skills are the only things keeping the Half Orc a loincloth sporting irrelevancy.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 4, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> People are noting that the Half-Orc is better on offense while the dwarf is better at defense. What they are neglecting is that the defense applies ALL the time.
> 
> If I'm fighting a spellcaster, doing one more damage with a slightly better chance to hit doesn't matter.




Not if there is no spell cast at the Dwarf.

Not if there is no save versus the spell.

And, the defense does not help at all 90% of the time when there is a save.

You have a very strange use of the word ALL.

Most of the time (i.e. most rounds of combat), the +2 doesn't mean squat. Probably a good 99% of the time, the save modifier does nothing for the Dwarf.

The only time it matters is:

1) A spell is cast at the Dwarf (maybe 1 combat in 4 in most campaigns since many encounters do not have any spell casters).

2) A spell is cast within a given round at the Dwarf when enemy spell casters exist (maybe 1 round in 3 since PCs tend to take out enemy spell casters quickly and those NPCs casters might not target the Dwarf in any given round since spell casters often tend to target other spell casters first).

3) The spell has a saving throw (maybe 9 spells in 10).

4) The +2 makes a difference to the roll (1 time in 10).

More or less, that's about one round in 133. It hardly ever matters. Even if you made #1 all combats and #2 all rounds (an extremely spell heavy campaign), that's still 1 time in 11 rounds.


The +2 Strength, on the other hand, will occur on probably 90% of all rounds (i.e. the Half-Orcs with a high strength will probably attack with a melee weapon or a Strength Composite Bow 9 rounds out of 10 and maybe do full moves or other actions 1 round in 10).

90% of all rounds versus 1% to 9% (campaign dependent) of all rounds.


Your spell defense point is totally without appreciable merit.


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 4, 2007)

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Strength is the best stat to have a bonus on for a moment...who thinks that dropping one of the negative stats for 1/2 Orcs (lets say Charisma, and leaving only a -2 on Intelligence), and giving them a +2 bonus on 2 or 3 skills (say Survivla, Climb and Intimidate, for the sake of argument) would *overpower* 1/2 Orcs against the other PHB races?


----------



## smootrk (Jan 4, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Strength is the best stat to have a bonus on for a moment...who thinks that dropping one of the negative stats for 1/2 Orcs (lets say Charisma, and leaving only a -2 on Intelligence), and giving them a +2 bonus on 2 or 3 skills (say Survivla, Climb and Intimidate, for the sake of argument) would *overpower* 1/2 Orcs against the other PHB races?



Certainly not game breaking in my opinion.  The race also needs additional feats (ORC Feats) to extend that balance into higher levels, just as Dwarves have feats geared towards them, Elves have feats geared to them, etc.  The Half-Orc especially (at least) needs some feats that help to ease the application of certain classes that they are otherwise ill-suited for (like the CON for CHA feat that I have seen geared for Dwarven Sorcerers that I mentioned in an earlier post).

Then you have a well rounded race.


----------



## AbeTheGnome (Jan 4, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Strength is the best stat to have a bonus on for a moment...



yes, let's.  in fact, let's make it longer than a moment.  i suggest for the remainder of this thread's existence.  who's with me?  we can start another thread about which stat is the most useful (one that i'll never look at, because i have no opinion, and don't really care all that much...).


----------



## brehobit (Jan 4, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The +2 Strength, on the other hand, will occur on probably 90% of all rounds (i.e. the Half-Orcs with a high strength will probably attack with a melee weapon or a Strength Composite Bow 9 rounds out of 10 and maybe do full moves or other actions 1 round in 10).
> 
> 90% of all rounds versus 1% to 9% (campaign dependent) of all rounds.
> 
> ...




By your logic the attack bonus (+1) only matters 5% of the time.  The damage bonus certainly only matters on a hit, and I suppose only if that extra damage actually causes the baddy to drop earlier.  So maybe 10-20% of the time?

I don't really have a horse in this race, but I think the whole "how often it matters" thing is a silly metric.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 4, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> People are noting that the Half-Orc is better on offense while the dwarf is better at defense. What they are neglecting is that the defense applies ALL the time.
> 
> If I'm fighting a spellcaster, doing one more damage with a slightly better chance to hit doesn't matter. Surviving that fireball does. The half-orc does more damage, but oh look now he's dominated..and that damage is going against the party. The dwarf's +2 to all spells and SLA is such a huge bonus.
> 
> The half-orc gets a small boost in an area he's good out, while the dwarf gets many benefits in places he's not great at or even weak at. That's worth a lot more to me.





True to a point.

But while a Half-Orc Barbarian in light armor moving 40' is probably going to die more often than that Dwarf Fighter who has the _advantage_(!?!) of only moving 20', I can virtually guarantee any newb can figure out how to have a hell of a lot fun with the Half-Orc every time initiative is rolled.

Can you really say the same about the Dwarf?

IME, no friggin' way.  Moving slow often means seeing the battle practically over and you have only gotten one lousy attack in.  If that.  It takes a certain style of player and/or a heck of a lot of teamwork to have fun with that character.

I have played heavily armored PCs and seriously considered downgrading to the light stuff.  Would I die for that choice?  Eventually, yeah.  But I would have fun along the way.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 4, 2007)

brehobit said:
			
		

> By your logic the attack bonus (+1) only matters 5% of the time.  The damage bonus certainly only matters on a hit, and I suppose only if that extra damage actually causes the baddy to drop earlier.  So maybe 10-20% of the time?




You are correct except for your percentages.

The extra damage (1 to 4 points circumstance depending) occurs on every successful hit.

At low level, that tends to be about 50% of the time for combatant types. At real high levels, that tends to be about 95% of the time (assuming no miss chance) for single attacks and AoOs, but multiple times PER ROUND on full round attacks.

One would still have to multiple this by the percentage of rounds in which an attack can actually occur (maybe 90%), but it is still a high percentage of rounds where progress is being made.

The metric is still a lot better than 1% to 9% of rounds of saving against a spell where the Dwarf would not have saved anyway.


As to whether it only helps if the baddie drops, this is totally debatable and campaign dependent. In our campaigns, baddies often run away if they get too injured (DM discretion) or if too many of their allies fall. Or, the extra damage from the Half-Orc might mean that when the Wizard does Scorching Ray, it does make a baddie drop whereas he would not have dropped from the spell without the extra damage. Extra damage can also cause enemy Divine casters to cast cure spells instead of more offensive ones.

Even making one opponent per combat drop one round earlier due to the extra damage saves party resources and hastens the end of battles. And, this tends to occur nearly every combat.

Extra damage also means a lot when an opponent has Damage Reduction and again, it would mean this every successful attack which can easily be multiple attacks per round, even at lower levels with AoOs (and with multiple attacks and Haste at higher levels).

An extra trickle against the opposition (above and beyond more normal melee damage) most rounds as opposed to stopping a flood from the opposition (i.e. a save versus a typically more potent spell) once in a rare blue moon. The extra trickle allows the Half-Orc to survive when others would not. The once in a blue moon extra saves of the Dwarf is going to happen as well, but it just won't happen enough times to seriously conserve party resources and assist in more everyday survival (i.e. most days, it won't come into play at all) as often as the Half-Orc damage trickle.


----------



## Felnar (Jan 4, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> But while a Half-Orc Barbarian in light armor moving 40' is probably going to die more often than that Dwarf Fighter who has the _advantage_(!?!) of only moving 20',



compare barbs to barbs, fighters to fighter, rangers to rangers
only rangers have a move speed difference

(not that it matters in this conversation, but i think the chain shirt (read chain T-shirt) is overpowered, making medium armors obsolete)


			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I can virtually guarantee any newb can figure out how to have a hell of a lot fun with the Half-Orc every time initiative is rolled.



and how much fun will that newb have during all the times that initiative isnt rolled?
that all depends on the game/DM style


----------



## Darklone (Jan 4, 2007)

brehobit said:
			
		

> By your logic the attack bonus (+1) only matters 5% of the time. ...



While you're right, it matters more the higher the AC is you fight against.

Example: If you need a 17+ to hit, a +1 to hit will increase your average damage by what? 25%. Granted, that's an extreme example... but pretty important for the secondary attacks.

About halforc style and extra feats and whatever: Read the thread. This has already been discussed and many houserules or bonuses to the halforcs have been proposed and me for example said: I like them and I do use such stuff. 

*This discussion now was not about whether the halforc couldn't use extras, it was about:

"Why did the designers think they had to balance Str+2 with two stat penalties?"

The answer is simply summarized:
"Because that str+2 is useful for most halforc characters very often in most games."*

Team, I quit.


----------



## Votan (Jan 4, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> While you're right, it matters more the higher the AC is you fight against.
> 
> Example: If you need a 17+ to hit, a +1 to hit will increase your average damage by what? 25%. Granted, that's an extreme example... but pretty important for the secondary attacks.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.  Something else that I think needs to be considered about balance -- you balance against the strongest use of a race, not the weakest.  

Dwarves make excellent wizards (despite the move issue which is alrger than usually considered) but horrible sorcerers.  Elves make sub-optimal tanks.  Halfling Barbarians are rare (despite being fun).   

If you improved the Hlaf-Orc it would be start being really good for strange classes like Cleric.  For example, +2 STR, -2 INT would make a brutal cleric.  The Dwarf already has some of this but the slow movement helps balance this race except for making the ebst fighters.  


Also, I suspect that the designers balanced Iconic Characters not necessarily classes and races themselves.  So they balanced a Half-Orc Barbarian (see more skill points) with a Dwarf Fighter, Halfling Rogue and Elf Wizard.  I think you'll find the game plays surprisingly more balanced when you use these combinations.


----------



## Votan (Jan 4, 2007)

Felnar said:
			
		

> (not that it matters in this conversation, but i think the chain shirt (read chain T-shirt) is overpowered, making medium armors obsolete)




In D&D these days, there are really only 2 types of armor once you make about 3rd level and can freely afford the type of armor to wear -- Full Plate and Chain Shirts.  Everything else is mechanically suboptimal.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 4, 2007)

Votan said:
			
		

> In D&D these days, there are really only 2 types of armor once you make about 3rd level and can freely afford the type of armor to wear -- Full Plate and Chain Shirts.  Everything else is mechanically suboptimal.



That's worth a new thread in houserules. Who starts it?


----------



## Votan (Jan 4, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> That's worth a new thread in houserules. Who starts it?




Why not?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 4, 2007)

Felnar said:
			
		

> compare barbs to barbs, fighters to fighter, rangers to rangers
> only rangers have a move speed difference




Sure.

The Half-Orc Barbarian moving 40' compares well enough with the Dwarven Barbarian moving 30'.  And the stat penalties hurt much less, as the Barbarian class has plenty of skill points.

Nope, no balance problem there.



> and how much fun will that newb have during all the times that initiative isnt rolled?
> that all depends on the game/DM style




That is too broad an issue to make any useful generalizations.  The topic of DM style cuts both ways.


----------



## Felnar (Jan 5, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The Half-Orc Barbarian moving 40' compares well enough with the Dwarven Barbarian moving 30'.



i dont play the high levels much, but i thought barbs wore mithral full plate
-----------
i had a thought about charisma penalties
are charisma penalties better suited for lawful alignment than for chaotic alignment?
basically, how are alignment and charisma connected?
(i've always had weak alignment-fu)


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 5, 2007)

Felnar said:
			
		

> i dont play the high levels much, but i thought barbs wore mithral full plate




Or mithral breastplate.


----------



## werk (Jan 5, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> "Why did the designers think they had to balance Str+2 with two stat penalties?"
> 
> The answer is simply summarized:
> "Because that str+2 is useful for most halforc characters very often in most games."[/b]
> ...




I think the answer is because orcs are stupid and stinky/ugly.  Not necessarily a balance thing, or maybe an extrapolation on balancing measures.

Dwarves don't get stonecunning because it makes them more or less powerful.  There has to be some room in the game for theme, right?


----------



## Darklone (Jan 5, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> I think the answer is because orcs are stupid and stinky/ugly.  Not necessarily a balance thing, or maybe an extrapolation on balancing measures.
> 
> Dwarves don't get stonecunning because it makes them more or less powerful.  There has to be some room in the game for theme, right?



Ok. Give them str +4 then.


----------



## Felnar (Jan 5, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> Dwarves don't get stonecunning because it makes them more or less powerful.  There has to be some room in the game for theme, right?



i stated this earlier, but stonecunning is a very potent ability while dungeoncrawling
it allows passive search checks against stonework traps


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (May 28, 2017)

All good points but I don't think the half orc got shirt changed at all. Not in 3.5 anyway. Look at all the good things they get. It also depends on the setting and campaign. The ability to go undercover amongst orcs can be good . The ugresh proficiency. The strength bonus plus if a Barbarian, rage str. And con. Goes up. Add power attack and orcs can do some greatsword damage! Half Orcs are tricky: who's expecting a half orc wizard, cleric , Monk, or bard. Half orc rogue/cleric/warlock/sacred outlaw/eldritch disciple is good(Eldritch glaive sneak attack does around 17d6 damage+ 1.5 strength bonus,plus interactives, every round), or Randedl Eldritch blast versus touch  A.C., plus add cleric spells as effects to blast, and hell blast at range).


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (May 28, 2017)

Half Orcs see in dark, speak orc language, can go unnoticed where Paladins would get jacked up, like into an orc camp. Half Orcs can be anti-inflammatory types, like the highly intelligent Hank McCoy/Beast of the X-Men. The thinking man monster.  If you are like me you can think of cool ways to play a half orc. They make cool interactions with dwarves and elves in a party too! Good drama. Add a cool  origin story about how he was conceived. Why he's a paladin of freedom on a quest to kill or incarcerate  all evil orcs maybe


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (May 29, 2017)

In version 5, you get 
A half orc with:  +2 Str.+1con, darkvision , move 30, Menacing, gain proficiency in the Intimidation skill, and Relentless Endurance, (if reduced to 0 hit points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 hit point instead. Hslf orc cannot use relentless endurance again until after taking a Long Rest), and Savage Attacks,( if score a critical hit with a melee weapon Attack,  roll one of the weapon’s damage dice one additional time and add it to the extra damage of the critical hit).


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (May 29, 2017)

In ADD1 ,half Orcs had infravision, and str and con bonus and charisma penalty ( only a penalty to rolls involving non orcs and non half orc encounters)


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (May 29, 2017)

In 2e,Exceptional Strength,
*Half-orcs receive 1 more HP each time they roll hit die, to a maximum of the hit die size (so a half-orc fighter with a 14 Constitution will receive 2-10 HP per level, instead of 1-10)
*Half-orcs receive a +2 to saving throws against disease and to resist the effect of bad smells (such as a troglodyte or an otyugh). While they have a highly developed sense of smell, they are also robust and have a strong resistance to smells that would disgust a human
. If the DM is liberal, in a home brew game you could have half orc/,half monster hybrids...Medusa orc mix anyone? Just put a level adjustment on it.


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (May 29, 2017)

The half-orc first availsble in the 1e Player's Handbook (1978) as a p.c. race.  
A number of half-orc varieties were given in Dragon magazine #44 (Dec. 1980), including the orc-bugbear, the orc-gnoll, the orc-goblin, the orc-hobgoblin, the orc-kobold, and the orc-ogre.  The mythology & attitudes of 1/2-orcs are described in detail in Dragon #62 (June 1982), by Roger E. Moore's , "The Half-Orc Point of View."
You could go through the monster manuals , etc. And make ore variations for fun.


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (May 29, 2017)

Dwarves only move 20 vs half orc move of  30. Huge difference! Especially the half orc barbarian or Monk moving ,40 or more! And can pass for human, unlike dwarf.


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (May 29, 2017)

In a 3.5 e. / Homebrew rules game, if I'm d.m. I am VERY liberal with all races. Any traits or perks from any version can usually be allowed by me . Not that big a deal.i would accept a half orc p.c. with all the benefits if a player wants to play it.+2 listen , spot, survival, add free scent( maybe at 30 foot range) , bonus to track with scent, infravision, dark vision, + ,str, + con, +1 hp/ level, free endurance feat, and more. But Elves get more in my games too.as do halflings and dwarves, etc.


----------



## John D'Amanda Jr. (Sep 8, 2017)

*Homebrew half orc*

Here's  one variant , thats homebrew.
Call it "Elite half-orc", and they get everything in the 3.5 phbplus, the following: 1)trollblood (like the trollblood regional feat, but I use it as a free racial feat),  fast healing 1,3) scent ( equal to a dog), 3) proficiency in all martial weapons, 4)+4 listen for pointed ears, 5)+4 to riding and to handle animals (wolves, wargs, horses), 6) +2 hide in wilderness or caves,and 7) no experience penalty for multi- classing fighter,barbarian, ranger, druid, cleric,rogue,scout, or assassin


----------

