Post/Author/DateTime	Post
creyzi4zb12 02-23-07, 08:09 PM	Duh, too many penalties..not so many bonuses..The only good thing these guys have is the strength boost, and compared to other bonuses of other races their bonuses are nothing, they should be nerfed if u ask me.
AMGriffin 02-23-07, 10:06 PM	...Is it just me, or do these threads seem to come in packs? There are two or three recent threads that discuss the half-orc's balance already.
Marcotic 02-23-07, 10:53 PM	K about the H-O Strenth as determined by WOTC is so important to the game that it is worth twice as much as any other ability. I sorta agree with that (take a look at wood elf though, the WOTC has such a hard on for elves) What I think they need isn't a change to ability stats, You take off that cha and int pentalty and they just don't sit right with me any more. I say maybe add a few things that mittigate the damages. For example does it really make sense that H-Orcs (and orcs for that matter) a race is known as cruel, fierce and merceless recieves a negetive on intimidate checks? what about handle animal? for a group of savages, how can they not be good at handling animals? this one is esspecially for orcs, but how are they bad at Survival? there barbarians that can't survive as well! But yeah, beyond that, IMO just givvem' an extra skill point (human lineage), maybe a bonus weapon proficiency (elves get 4) other then that, (and in addition to that) know that whatever you come up with has already been done (it seems that this is sorta the secondary use of this forum) BTW I think that H-orcs are a bit under powered And AM griffon, this guy probley wanted his own thread to help him get actual suggestions
Kadasbrass 02-24-07, 02:25 AM	Yes the Half-orc is generally accepted as amoung the weakest of core races. But to be honest I'd rather play it over a half-elf since what few racial it has traits are easier to work and more beneficial directly. ...Is it just me, or do these threads seem to come in packs? There are two or three recent threads that discuss the half-orc's balance already. Could be worse, we could have another wave of catfolk or catgirl threads. There is even a half-orc thread in the houserules section too. Thanks to them we keep seeing each other AMGriffin ;)
Light_Colonel 02-24-07, 02:41 AM	Duh, too many penalties..not so many bonuses..The only good thing these guys have is the strength boost, and compared to other bonuses of other races their bonuses are nothing, they should be nerfed if u ask me. They are the only PHB race with a bonus to STR. If you want to include other LA 0 races from the MM, their ancestors the Orc get 2 more STR at the cost of -2 WIS. Then there is the Wood Elf as mentioned by Marcotic, which does indeed get +2 STR for "only" -2 INT, however, it also gets +2 DEX and -2 CON. Assuming you are playing a Fighter-type and want that STR, you most likely do not want that -2 CON as well. Which is what makes the Half-Orc balanced. It gets Darkvision and that's pretty much it. No penalties to speak of and it gets +2 STR at the price of -2 to stats that are in all likelyhood, going to be dump stats for a Barbarian anyway. K about the H-O Strenth as determined by WOTC is so important to the game that it is worth twice as much as any other ability. I sorta agree with that (take a look at wood elf though, the WOTC has such a hard on for elves) What I think they need isn't a change to ability stats, You take off that cha and int pentalty and they just don't sit right with me any more. I say maybe add a few things that mittigate the damages. For example does it really make sense that H-Orcs (and orcs for that matter) a race is known as cruel, fierce and merceless recieves a negetive on intimidate checks? what about handle animal? for a group of savages, how can they not be good at handling animals? this one is esspecially for orcs, but how are they bad at Survival? there barbarians that can't survive as well! But yeah, beyond that, IMO just givvem' an extra skill point (human lineage), maybe a bonus weapon proficiency (elves get 4) other then that, (and in addition to that) know that whatever you come up with has already been done (it seems that this is sorta the secondary use of this forum) BTW I think that H-orcs are a bit under powered And AM griffon, this guy probley wanted his own thread to help him get actual suggestions For the record, Orcs in the wild are generally depicted as being bad at being farmers, which is why they raid human(oid) villages so frequently. They lack the skill set to Handle Animals and what not. As far as Intimidate goes, that is a deficiancy with the Intimidate skill, not Orcs and Half-Orcs as a whole.
EvilIdiot 02-24-07, 09:31 AM	Then there is the Wood Elf as mentioned by Marcotic, which does indeed get +2 STR for "only" -2 INT, however, it also gets +2 DEX and -2 CON. Assuming you are playing a Fighter-type and want that STR, you most likely do not want that -2 CON as well. No one wants -2 con, and having +2dex +2 str means higher AC and BAB, not bad, really. Can you play a wood elf wizard? yes, that's a bit difficult, because of racial modifiers and BG: wood elves are specifically savage people, who doesn't fit for the wiz role Can you play an elf wizard? sure. an elf fighter? sure Broadly speaking, there is an elf for any season, pardon, role. Can you play a HalfOrc wizard? well, half orcs live in cities, outlands and whenever any other humanoid can live, so there could be also halforcs wizards. But, what about the stats? they really sucks! A halforc ,as in the PHB, can be a brute warrior only: barbarian, ranger, fighter(without combat expertise),druid. Other races haven't got this kind of limit, you can play a dwarf sorcer or an elf barbarian, without efforts. why? because if you're going to have ,in the end, a high score thanks to your racial mod, you can decide to lower it, spending higher scores for those ones your character's class depends on,It's obvious. Put 8 cos and 18 char to the dwarf sorc, and you get a 10 cos 16 char sorcer, at 1° lv, not bad, isn't it? A halforc has 2 penalties vs 1 bonus... it's unfair, even managing scores as above. Finally, elves can be high,moon,wood,savage,extraterrestrial, plastic, stroboscopic, strawberry&cream.... any subrace has its own advantages, and favoured class. Halforcs , who can live in very different ways, according to BG, don't have subraces, so, they're limited even in this way!
Rogue Shadows 02-24-07, 09:47 AM	For the record, Orcs in the wild are generally depicted as being bad at being farmers, which is why they raid human(oid) villages so frequently. They lack the skill set to Handle Animals and what not. As far as Intimidate goes, that is a deficiancy with the Intimidate skill, not Orcs and Half-Orcs as a whole. I normally hosuerule that half-orcs and orcs have a racial feature called Imposing Presence, which lets them use their STR rather then their CHA modifiers on Intimidate checks.
creyzi4zb12 02-24-07, 10:31 AM	I think orcs are pretty balanced coz of their +4 to str. Half-orcs on the other hand don't seem to have good benefits. I mean, darkvision, comeon!! Dwarves have darkvision too plus they've got tons of bonuses besides half-orcs. -6 on the jump is an ass and slow movement, but it's more likely being a fact that dwarves races are better picked than half-orc races. Half-Orcs should be good farmers and animal herders coz they have human heritage in them.
Kursk 02-24-07, 11:11 AM	I like playing half Orcs because, well, their very fun to play. Ever play a Sorc with one. Pretty fun character.
AMGriffin 02-24-07, 04:48 PM	Half-orcs are my favorite race to RP, but they are pretty underpowered as presented in the PHB. Heck, for a PHB race they're not exactly versitaile either. The only ESSENTIAL thing they really need is to have their intelligence penalty removed, but even after that there is room for a couple skill bonuses and saves to a few things here and there.
Jaxgaret 02-24-07, 06:29 PM	Half-Orc melee-oriented Clerics are not bad at all. One can make the claim that a Half-Orc melee Cleric is the strongest core melee character one can make, and have a real argument for it. Also, using the Orc's stats and calling the character a Half-Orc can be quite appealing.
JarionSilverblades 02-24-07, 07:16 PM	From the # of Threds on the topic and the # of Post each Tread gets, I would have to say Most people think the Half-Orc is way underpowered, just behind the Half-elf.
AMGriffin 02-24-07, 07:19 PM	The half-elf never gets as much attention dedicated to it probably because it's inferiority isn't all that apparent.
creyzi4zb12 02-24-07, 09:27 PM	Or half-orcs are just too cool to be unnoticed.
AMGriffin 02-24-07, 10:01 PM	Maybe that, but at first glance you can very obviously tell the half-orc is at a disadvantage.
Oakspar77777 02-24-07, 10:36 PM	1) Half-Orc specifically do not have all the abilities that they could specifically to keep them simple for beginning players. 2) An easy add on would be racial weapons (like the other races). 3) ST is worth any other physical stat or two mental stats (SS has the balancing guide). That is why the Wood Elf gets off so well. ST balances to CN, and DX balances to IN (getting arround the double cost). 4) Normal Orcs are ECL+0 and get +4 to ST (which verses 3 mental stats is actually technically overbalanced, but is balanced by light sensitivity which negates the attack, if not the damage, bonus for the extra ST). 5) True, you can find an Elf for any season, but an Elf Fighter is still inferior to the Orc one. 6) If you find them underbalanced, work with your DM to even that balance. D&D is not a legalistic system. If something doesn't work for you or your campaign, you have a DM to bend and balance for the good of all.
AMGriffin 02-24-07, 11:34 PM	1) Half-Orc specifically do not have all the abilities that they could specifically to keep them simple for beginning players. That statement always sends me into a world of utter despair and angst. 2) An easy add on would be racial weapons (like the other races). I don't think so. It really wouldn't be addressing the problem either. 3) ST is worth any other physical stat or two mental stats (SS has the balancing guide). That is why the Wood Elf gets off so well. ST balances to CN, and DX balances to IN (getting arround the double cost). Strength is NOT worth two mental stats. I don't care what you say. It isn't. 4) Normal Orcs are ECL+0 and get +4 to ST (which verses 3 mental stats is actually technically overbalanced, but is balanced by light sensitivity which negates the attack, if not the damage, bonus for the extra ST). Orcs are even worse then their half-breed offspring. Super pidgeon-holed into the melee only role. It only makes matters worse they're overpowered as melee fighters too. 5) True, you can find an Elf for any season, but an Elf Fighter is still inferior to the Orc one. I question the validity of this statement. Elves get a variety of bonuses that make them viable OUTSIDE of the "ugh smash" role. 6) If you find them underbalanced, work with your DM to even that balance. D&D is not a legalistic system. If something doesn't work for you or your campaign, you have a DM to bend and balance for the good of all. This is true.
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-24-07, 11:51 PM	I agree that half-orcs are a bit underpowered. Basically, this is what Wizards is saying to each core race: Human: You can do everything. Other races may be slightly better than you at some things, but you make up for it in versatility. Elf: You are good at wizardry, archery, and swordplay. You're a bit weak, but you make up for that with finesse. Half-Elf: You're the mediator. You are, like a human, a jack of all trades but master of none, but you've got versatility just like your human counterparts. Halfling: You are small and stealthy. You're weaker physically due to your small size, but you make up for your weakness with your stealth, cunning, and luck. Gnome: You're inquisitive and curious. Hardy but physically weak, eccentric and a master of tinkering and devices. Half-orc: You big dumb brute. You smash things. You suck at all but smashing things. In your face, big dumb half orc.
Marcotic 02-25-07, 12:17 AM	argrees with imeadiatly above
AMGriffin 02-25-07, 09:29 AM	I agree with that list say for the half-elf, which basically sucks at everything.
Kursk 02-25-07, 10:12 AM	Orcs are even worse then their half-breed offspring. Super pidgeon-holed into the melee only role. It only makes matters worse they're overpowered as melee fighters too. Orcs are designed as MONSTERS not as PCs. So it is irrelevant if they are "balanced" against PC races or not.
AMGriffin 02-25-07, 10:14 AM	And that is lamentable. I know Wotc probably was hard pressed to make every monster race work as a PC race, but both orcs and half orcs seem way too bland.
Kursk 02-25-07, 10:22 AM	And that is lamentable. I know Wotc probably was hard pressed to make every monster race work as a PC race, but both orcs and half orcs seem way too bland. They weren't hard pressed. They just threw it in as a possibility for people who wanted to try it. They never intended to make monsters balanced against PC races.
Jaxgaret 02-25-07, 11:07 AM	They weren't hard pressed. They just threw it in as a possibility for people who wanted to try it. They never intended to make monsters balanced against PC races. Quite so. They're generally underpowered in comparison... and it's probably a good thing, lest campaigns become overridden with monsters-as-PCs. Which was the very reasoning behind WotC's decision to nerf them.
Oakspar77777 02-25-07, 07:06 PM	In reply to AMGriffon: Me: 1) Half-Orc specifically do not have all the abilities that they could specifically to keep them simple for beginning players. AMGriffon: That statement always sends me into a world of utter despair and angst. Me: That it may, but you cannot deny that having a simple, easy to run, easy to roleplay, easy to fit into any party (melee based) race (and class) is a reasonable thing for WotC to put into the game. Just because the "starter race" is a little less powered for beginners does not warrent that level of "despair and angst." (Indeed nothing within a GAME should be worth of either of those emotions.) Quote: Me: 2) An easy add on would be racial weapons (like the other races). AMGriffon: I don't think so. It really wouldn't be addressing the problem either. Me: You don't think this would be an easy add on? "Orcs can use the Orcish Double Axe as a Martial rather than Exotic Weapon." It isn't just simple, it is intuitive (since the Dwarves and Gnomes both have the SAME ability with thier own racial weapons). It doesn't address the entire problem, but it does begin to deal with one of the two complaints against the H-Orc (flavour and power). Quote: Me: 3) ST is worth any other physical stat or two mental stats (SS has the balancing guide). That is why the Wood Elf gets off so well. ST balances to CN, and DX balances to IN (getting arround the double cost). AMGriffon: Strength is NOT worth two mental stats. I don't care what you say. It isn't. Me: It has NOTHING to do with what I say. As I mentioned, this guide is from Savage Species, so it is what WotC says. I just happen to agree. WotC was careful in their choices of PHB races and their bonuses. Remember back when Gnomes had an IN bonus (back in 2nd edition)? Well ST, IN, WS, and CH are offensive stats. DX is primarely a defensive stat for AC (only affects %hit for ranged not damage). CN is purely defensive. When keeping things balanced, defence has alot more give than offence. Go to the Character Optimization boards and see if there are more threads on offensive or defensive abuses. So, no race has a bonus to a damage dealing stat EXCEPT the H-Orc. Yes, mental stats are damage dealers, since they add to the DC and number of spells of the appropriate classes. An IN16 Wizard does more damage on average than an IN14 Wizard because 5% more foes fail their saveing throw. Mental stats don't trade evenly for ST, since, unless you are the exact caster that needs that stat, you can afford to dump it. Also, ST is, in general, more useful than a mental stat that does not effect spellcasting for that character. Also, ST translates into more damage more consistantly, especially in lower levels where stat differences make more difference. Quote: Me: 4) Normal Orcs are ECL+0 and get +4 to ST (which verses 3 mental stats is actually technically overbalanced, but is balanced by light sensitivity which negates the attack, if not the damage, bonus for the extra ST). AMGriffon: Orcs are even worse then their half-breed offspring. Super pidgeon-holed into the melee only role. It only makes matters worse they're overpowered as melee fighters too. Me: "Super pidgeon-holed" they might be, but that only makes them more powerful. Obviously you havn't realized that D&D is a social game. A party of four "Super pidgeon-holed" characters that rock in their respective roles is FAR FAR FAR more effective than a party of four generalist. So, you are simultaneously holding that (ST trading for two stats is underpowered, and two ST trading for three stats is overpowered? What is ST worth if 1/2 is too weak and 2/3 is too powerful???? 7/12????) Don't forget that "light sensitivity" either. It definately adds to the RP potential of a pure orc, as he likes the dark and wants to avoid the daytime (when parties normally like to travel). Quote: Me: 5) True, you can find an Elf for any season, but an Elf Fighter is still inferior to the Orc one. AMGriffon: I question the validity of this statement. Elves get a variety of bonuses that make them viable OUTSIDE of the "ugh smash" role. Me: First, the High Elf does not get a variety of bonuses. It gets one. There just happen to be a dozen or so variety of Elves. Each one, however, is its own race (as distinct as humans, half-orcs, and orcs) with its own tendencies, cultures, and attitudes. It is weak role playing that lets people just pick any type of elf that matches their stat desires and then play it like a cookie cutter "elf." So, lets take a look at all of the classes and see which ones are "viable" for each race: Barbarian - HO only (elves suck with short wimpy rages) Bard - Elf only (HO two important bard stats) Cleric - Both (favors HO, since Clc cares about ST more than DX) Druid - Both (favors HO, but not as much as Clc, since DX is more important) Fighter - Both (ranged = Elf, Melee = HO and Melee is far more common and useful for the party) Monk - Both (favors neither) Paladin - HO only (Pal doesn't care about DX, needs CN, and the CH hit isn't good, but can be overcome) Ranger - Both (favors Elf) Rogue - Both (favors Elf) Wizard - Elf only Sorcerer - Elf only So, Elf only 3, HO only 2, both 6 (and more favor HO). You can argue with a detail here or there with that summary, but if you are only playing a "bang-smash" HO, then you are likely play the cardboard cutout campaigns where all Dwarves are fighters and all halflings are rogues. Think [BOX] think. Quote: Me: 6) If you find them underbalanced, work with your DM to even that balance. D&D is not a legalistic system. If something doesn't work for you or your campaign, you have a DM to bend and balance for the good of all. AMGriffon: This is true.
FrostHammer 02-25-07, 07:10 PM	Oakspar is alright right. *has been worshipping Oakspar since reading Kandi and Pepper*
AMGriffin 02-25-07, 10:31 PM	In reply to AMGriffon: Me: 1) Half-Orc specifically do not have all the abilities that they could specifically to keep them simple for beginning players. AMGriffon: That statement always sends me into a world of utter despair and angst. Me: That it may, but you cannot deny that having a simple, easy to run, easy to roleplay, easy to fit into any party (melee based) race (and class) is a reasonable thing for WotC to put into the game. Just because the "starter race" is a little less powered for beginners does not warrent that level of "despair and angst." (Indeed nothing within a GAME should be worth of either of those emotions.) You missed the point. The point being that it's a very lame excuse. "Oh well half-orcs are simple and bland because Wotc thinks their only purpose is to be for starters and beginners. Me: You don't think this would be an easy add on? "Orcs can use the Orcish Double Axe as a Martial rather than Exotic Weapon." It isn't just simple, it is intuitive (since the Dwarves and Gnomes both have the SAME ability with thier own racial weapons). It doesn't address the entire problem, but it does begin to deal with one of the two complaints against the H-Orc (flavour and power). Well what if that specific half-orc is raised by humans? What if being half-orc he wasn't allowed by his orcish relatives to learn to fight with these weapons? Not only that but it doesn't address the half-orc's problems at all, flavor maybe but power? Half-orcs have a strength bonus, that alone makes them good for melee combat. I'd rather seem them be able to perform well outside the role of melee combatant. Me: It has NOTHING to do with what I say. As I mentioned, this guide is from Savage Species, so it is what WotC says. I just happen to agree. WotC was careful in their choices of PHB races and their bonuses. Remember back when Gnomes had an IN bonus (back in 2nd edition)? Well ST, IN, WS, and CH are offensive stats. DX is primarely a defensive stat for AC (only affects %hit for ranged not damage). CN is purely defensive. When keeping things balanced, defence has alot more give than offence. Go to the Character Optimization boards and see if there are more threads on offensive or defensive abuses. So, no race has a bonus to a damage dealing stat EXCEPT the H-Orc. I completely question the validity of Wotc Saying this. I mean come on, strength is only considered more powerful if and only if the melee classes were relatively in balance with the spell casting classes. Sure it's great early on in the games when all you're fighting is goblins and your casters can only cast like 2 spells a day but by the time I'd say 3rd level spells are introduced any supposed superiority strength had is gone. It's at that point the melee classes become meat shields for the most part that occupy opponents while the casters prepare powerful spells as the focal point of the offense. The higher level spells and now "meat-shield" role melee classes occupy means that better saves, high AC, and more HP are exceedingly important. Strength's offensive role is no longer dominant, that's what casters are now for, so in the end it's not really all that great. Yes, mental stats are damage dealers, since they add to the DC and number of spells of the appropriate classes. An IN16 Wizard does more damage on average than an IN14 Wizard because 5% more foes fail their saveing throw. Yes. This is true. [/quote]Mental stats don't trade evenly for ST, since, unless you are the exact caster that needs that stat, you can afford to dump it. Also, ST is, in general, more useful than a mental stat that does not effect spellcasting for that character. Also, ST translates into more damage more consistantly, especially in lower levels where stat differences make more difference.[/quote] Well then if they don't effect melee classes what point is there to adding multiple mental penalties? All you're really doing is limiting the roles a half-orc can take. Me: "Super pidgeon-holed" they might be, but that only makes them more powerful. Obviously you havn't realized that D&D is a social game. A party of four "Super pidgeon-holed" characters that rock in their respective roles is FAR FAR FAR more effective than a party of four generalist. I don't think so, and even so no roleplaying potential can come from lumping races together like that. So, you are simultaneously holding that (ST trading for two stats is underpowered, and two ST trading for three stats is overpowered? What is ST worth if 1/2 is too weak and 2/3 is too powerful???? 7/12????) Don't forget that "light sensitivity" either. It definately adds to the RP potential of a pure orc, as he likes the dark and wants to avoid the daytime (when parties normally like to travel). Look at this way buddy. In terms of the meat-shield melee orcs are generally better then half-orcs. Sure, they have a lower will save but when you're raging you get a bonus that compensates for it. I never said half-orcs weren't good at what they intended, but when that's all you can do it's very frustrating, especially for something half-friggin' human, and also the fact orcs are basically better at smashing things but suck at basically EVERYTHING but melee. ANd light sensitivity is a pretty hollow bonus, there's a pair of goggles that remove light sensivity. Me: First, the High Elf does not get a variety of bonuses. It gets one. There just happen to be a dozen or so variety of Elves. Each one, however, is its own race (as distinct as humans, half-orcs, and orcs) with its own tendencies, cultures, and attitudes. It is weak role playing that lets people just pick any type of elf that matches their stat desires and then play it like a cookie cutter "elf." When you said elf for any season I assumed you meant subraces. There is indeed an elf for every season some of which are redundant. Even so the high elf is much more applicable to a variety of classes. Barbarian - HO only (elves suck with short wimpy rages) Bard - Elf only (HO two important bard stats) Cleric - Both (favors HO, since Clc cares about ST more than DX) Druid - Both (favors HO, but not as much as Clc, since DX is more important) Fighter - Both (ranged = Elf, Melee = HO and Melee is far more common and useful for the party) Monk - Both (favors neither) Paladin - HO only (Pal doesn't care about DX, needs CN, and the CH hit isn't good, but can be overcome) Ranger - Both (favors Elf) Rogue - Both (favors Elf) Wizard - Elf only Sorcerer - Elf only Just a few things that jumped out to me. First off you underestimate elven clerics. In terms of the number one ability to clerics wisdom neither are at an advantage. Sure, orcs can hit hard but that's not the primary focus of the cleric. It's casting, and elves also get those handy weapon proficiencies alogn with a ton of other bonuses that give them a little breathing room for a wide variety of situations. Hell, there's also the whole "clerics use charisma for turning undea" aspect of it all too. I'm also floored you said half-orcs are better as paladins, maybe with paladin subsitution levels, but because charisma is the base stat for both of the paladin's useful abilities (and the class is underpowered itself). You're left with a watered down fighter basically. I also think you don't understand anything about rogues, elves are ten times better as rogues then half-orcs. First off, the keen senses are important to rogues... also remember half-orcs have a friggin intelligence penalty and rogues are the ultiamte skill class, they have a penalty to charisma...use magical device anyone? And the strength bonus is often grossly overvalued in rogues, it really doesn't have much impact when you consider the rogue won't be an offensive class and they have that sneak attack ability as their major means for dealing damage. Elves on the other hand have automatic access to swords and bows that rogues normally would need to take feats for. So on revision of that list I'd say it's much moreso like this: Barbarian - Half-orc as you said. Bard - Elf by far Cleric - elves overall are better but war priests half-orcs may have bit more of a chance with. Druid - Elf by quite a bit Fighter- Half-orc in most (but not all) builds, but elves have an easier time getting the combat expertise chain of feats and the two-weapon fighting, dodge, amongst other things. Monk - Fairly even Paladin - Elf by quite a bit Ranger - Elf by a slim margin, they're way better as archers and roughly even as dual-wielders Rogue - Elf by a ton Wizard - Elf by a ton Sorcerer - Elf by a ton You've also missed another point entirely that somehow got left out. Half-orcs will always be able to be outdone by orcs or humans in nearly every role, the only exception that comes to mind really is the battle pirest (but that extra human feat and charisma penalty leaves alot to be questioned). And even if they are pretty good or acceptable in a few classes...they still can't do anything notably good outside of fighting, and are even outright bad as all the roles outside of melee fighting.
Jaxgaret 02-25-07, 11:03 PM	So on revision of that list I'd say it's much moreso like this: Barbarian - Half-orc as you said. Bard - Elf by far Cleric - elves overall are better but war priests half-orcs may have bit more of a chance with. Druid - Elf by quite a bit Fighter- Half-orc in most (but not all) builds, but elves have an easier time getting the combat expertise chain of feats and the two-weapon fighting, dodge, amongst other things. Monk - Fairly even Paladin - Elf by quite a bit Ranger - Elf by a slim margin, they're way better as archers and roughly even as dual-wielders Rogue - Elf by a ton Wizard - Elf by a ton Sorcerer - Elf by a ton Half-orcs will always be able to be outdone by orcs or humans in nearly every role, the only exception that comes to mind really is the battle priest (but that extra human feat and charisma penalty leaves alot to be questioned). The latter part of your post I QFT. The first part, the table of Elf vs. Half-Orc, I find to be mostly correct, and I applaud that, but erroneous for the following classes: Druid: Half-Orc all the way. Once the Druid gets Wild Shape, that Con penalty is a real pain in the ass for the Elf. Also, the Half-Orc Druid substitution levels from RoD are quite nice, providing the class with a d10 HD; that's two HP per level the Half-Orc is up on the Elf. Plus a couple of nice bonuses for the loss of just one Wild Shape per day. Monk: Half-Orc. Int and Cha are dump stats for Monks, and a Monk can use all the Strength it can get, more than almost any class. Plus the Elf's immunities are of less use to the Monk, who is the most magically resistant class to begin with, than to other classes. And the Elf's free weapon proficiencies are likewise not very useful, as they are not considered "monk" weapons. Paladin: About even, or Half-Orc again. The Half-Orc Paladin using racial substitution levels from RoD gets a great boost by replacing Smite with Righteous Fury, and a bump to a d12 HD.
DwarfPcfan 02-26-07, 11:02 AM	Personnaly I believe that orcs and half-orcs should get something along bonuses to intimidate, survival, etc to balance but having trouble with any race or class is RP problem not the race in question's problem. In the campaign I'm currently Dming, one of my players is an orc barbarian and seriously his character is very cool. He's playing a savage ruthless survivor barbarian type character who is slowly learning the value of mercy, justice and honor, cool character really:cool: :D . On a mechanical level his orc is killing machine. He just hit's things and they DIE period Seriously Barbarian5/fighter4, 20 strenght, dex 14, con 15, int14, wis10, cha8 Feats: Reckless rage, extra rage, power attack, cleave, improved critical (falchion) He's an excellent character and the negative to mental stats were never a problem Orcs can be just fine as they are, but only if the player really works on his role-playing...
creyzi4zb12 02-26-07, 12:31 PM	The latter part of your post I QFT. The first part, the table of Elf vs. Half-Orc, I find to be mostly correct, and I applaud that, but erroneous for the following classes: Druid: Half-Orc all the way. Once the Druid gets Wild Shape, that Con penalty is a real pain in the ass for the Elf. Also, the Half-Orc Druid substitution levels from RoD are quite nice, providing the class with a d10 HD; that's two HP per level the Half-Orc is up on the Elf. Plus a couple of nice bonuses for the loss of just one Wild Shape per day. Monk: Half-Orc. Int and Cha are dump stats for Monks, and a Monk can use all the Strength it can get, more than almost any class. Plus the Elf's immunities are of less use to the Monk, who is the most magically resistant class to begin with, than to other classes. And the Elf's free weapon proficiencies are likewise not very useful, as they are not considered "monk" weapons. Paladin: About even, or Half-Orc again. The Half-Orc Paladin using racial substitution levels from RoD gets a great boost by replacing Smite with Righteous Fury, and a bump to a d12 HD. A druid that's half-orc would be a druid that relies on shapeshift. You'd get tons of penalty on lore...concentration.....the only thing you'll be doing when u use half-orc is shapeshifting bonuses. IN spell bonuses elves get the upper hand than orc. Which makes elves more better for druids than orc coz druids don't always rely on shapeshift. In monk, the orc would pawn the elf. A paladin that's half-orc..well he gets a big penalty of charisma. Haven't really tried it before. But I think elves should be better since Paladins require a more balanced build.
EvilIdiot 02-26-07, 01:13 PM	Me: 1) Half-Orc specifically do not have all the abilities that they could specifically to keep them simple for beginning players. How does taking away 1 mental penalty would make HO complicated? Quote: Me: 3) ST is worth any other physical stat or two mental stats (SS has the balancing guide). Who cares about SS? We're not agreeing to that system, either for LA0 races or for every race we can play. That is why the Wood Elf gets off so well. ST balances to CN, and DX balances to IN (getting arround the double cost). You must be joking. A normal elf has +2 DX which balances -2CN, isn't it? If you add +2 ST, as in SS, you should add -2 to other two mental stats, there's no way. If you say that +2 ST is balanced by -2 CN as well, you're saying straight elven are underpowered, which ,I think, is false. But, anyway, we're not talking about any elf, only the wood elf, which is the dumb elf among the others... If you talk about half orcs, you have only 1 race, which sucks at everything isn't savage and brute. And I'd like to point out something about AMGriffin post( who I agree with) Cleric - elves overall are better but war priests half-orcs may have bit more of a chance with. Paladin - Elf by quite a bit You should think that -2 CAR (which is hardly balanced ) means you're a little lonely....what deity wants a poor HO which isn't able to speak to masses? Pelor?No. Olidammara?No. Elhonna?No(what about elven worshippers?). Heironeus?No. StCuthbert?No. Kord?Hmm...well...maybe Boccob?No. Obad-hai?yes, but there are better alternatives... Fharlanghan?No. Vecna? No. Nerull?hmm... maybe. Hextor?hmm..maybe.. Well, let's say it is pretty rare. Druid - Elf by quite a bit Ranger - Elf by a slim margin, they're way better as archers and roughly even as dual-wielders Elves have no problem being a rich wizard, owner of a large mansion in a chaotic city, and a moneyless ranger who sleeps covered by leaves. HO? well....always savage and dirty... Fighter- Half-orc in most (but not all) builds, but elves have an easier time getting the combat expertise chain of feats and the two-weapon fighting, dodge, amongst other things. Right, CE means you're not a brute squashing machine...HO, strangely, get it harder... Rogue - Elf by a ton Who would be noted at most in every situation?a humanoid resembling a short human(disguised elf)?a humanoid resembling a woman(a slightly disguised elf)? a tall and big human with big tooth spreading out of his mouth, with a greeny skin( in whatever way he tried to disguise himself)? Anyway, if you have -2 to X and +2 to Y, you can lower Y, and put higher scores to X, mean of modifiers is a damned 0!!! If you have -2 to X and Z and +2 to Y, you're always underpowered for whichever class that don't rely directly on Y stat,medium modifier is -1, got it? Uh, I didn't talked about racial BG, which is fine for HO, but always an additional handicap.
Oakspar77777 02-27-07, 10:16 PM	Again, when it comes to stat bonuses, it is not my system, but WotC's. I do agree with it fully, and they justify it clearly. If there needs to be a chance, it would be that mental stat boosts really deserve to balance against two stats as well (something that might have happened if any PHB races had a mental stat boost, but they intentionally modified the Gnome to get rid of that). You don't have to like it or agree with it, but if that is the case, talk to your DM and change YOUR campaign, because, it makes sense. So, dance and scream if you want, but really, you should be modifying your campaign to your desires, playing, and having fun. I do have to disagree with some of the comments relating to race-class. Of course, humans trump all, as they can effectively be any class, but the point was to compare them to elves, who are supposed to be the uber race. Any complaint that the HO is pigeoned holed shoul also be compared with other races as well. HO is no more pigeon holed than the Dwarf, Halfling, or Gnome. When it comes to Clerics, however, HO do rule. Clerics don't need a high DX. They can do as much with armor as they could with DX and have other stats that could be buffed. Of course, Clerics love WS, and there the HO and Elf are even. Clerics do use CH for turning/controling, and the Elf wins there, but a Cleric is also a secondary melee character (in a standard group of 4). The HO will have more hp, due to a higher CH, will hit more often and for more damage (and most clerics wade in from time to time, especially early on), and the HO can carry that heavy armor that clerics thrive in. Even if you are going the "Mythril Breastplate" way to stay moble, it doesn't need an Elf's DX bonus, since for that price you can just use Gloves of DX to max out the armor. Elf weapons also do not do that much for a Cleric, since a Morning Star does just as much damage as a Longsword, and while the Crit modifier stinks, it does two types of damage. Druids are in the same condition. Early on (pre-shapechange) the AC bonus from the DX is nice, but so is the attack and damage potential from the ST bonus. As for the HO being dependent on shapechange, I have to wonder. What druid isn't? That AC for hp trade doesn't keep you from sitting in the back and throwing spells if you want to. Yes, Rogue FAVOR elves, but notice that my list was for VIABLE classes, and a HO makes a very viable Rogue. Yes, the HO gets one less skill point per level, but with all of the skills a Rogue gets, that is a small sacrifice (otherwise noone would play an Elf Rogue, since Humans get +1 skill points per level). The HO can save a feat on Wpn Finesse, and can make up the AC with heavier armors (since the Armor Check pentalty to movement skills is balanced by a higher modifier). So, he can't sneak as well, but he can take a hit better, and so is much better for a Rogue that is going to spend time in combat. Also, he can do more against foes that are not Sneak Attackable. Atypical? Yes. No strager, however, than the Dwarf Rogue.
EvilIdiot 02-28-07, 04:14 AM	Again, when it comes to stat bonuses, it is not my system, but WotC's. I do agree with it fully, and they justify it clearly. If there needs to be a chance, it would be that mental stat boosts really deserve to balance against two stats as well (something that might have happened if any PHB races had a mental stat boost, but they intentionally modified the Gnome to get rid of that). Wood elves do not follow this rule at all, and a -2CON with 1d10-1d12 pf per level isn't a problem either. The point is that you use SS rules to justify some of your ideas, which have all the rights to be written of course, while we're telling there are some situation where these rules don't work. Everyone is free of believing whatever he want, naturally. I do have to disagree with some of the comments relating to race-class. Of course, humans trump all, as they can effectively be any class, but the point was to compare them to elves, who are supposed to be the uber race. Any complaint that the HO is pigeoned holed shoul also be compared with other races as well. HO is no more pigeon holed than the Dwarf, Halfling, or Gnome. Not by stat. And I never said elves are uber races; wood elves are, the only ones who do not follow SS rules or, at least, do not seem to be balanced by following them. When it comes to Clerics, however, HO do rule. Except for RoleP, and any race without penalties to WS is good for cleric, and druid too Yes, the HO gets one less skill point per level, but with all of the skills a Rogue gets, that is a small sacrifice (otherwise noone would play an Elf Rogue, since Humans get +1 skill points per level). The HO can save a feat on Wpn Finesse, and can make up the AC with heavier armors (since the Armor Check pentalty to movement skills is balanced by a higher modifier). So, he can't sneak as well, but he can take a hit better, and so is much better for a Rogue that is going to spend time in combat. Also, he can do more against foes that are not Sneak Attackable. Atypical? Yes. No strager, however, than the Dwarf Rogue. Ah...how can I say...this is the typical description of a fighter, maybe light/medium armoured, but always a fighter.... Rogues are The Sneaky class, having a not-sneaking rouge is like having a not-performing bard... Dwarves rogue are stranger?! Are they hard to roleplay? Have they any penalty? Elven can have +2 int as well...
Rogue Shadows 02-28-07, 09:23 AM	Rogues are The Sneaky class, having a not-sneaking rouge is like having a not-performing bard... Says who? Rogues could be the opposite of sneaky. They could eb flamboyant con-men who have maxed out their ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Sleight of Hand. Think of card players. Rogues are also the premier dip class. I've regularly taken levels of Rogue or had NPCs take levels of Rogue just to get them more skill points. In the other vein, Rogues make excellent tanks with just a slight dip into Fighter for some bonus HP and feats. Rogues don't HAVE to be sneaky...
EvilIdiot 02-28-07, 11:24 AM	True, indeed. :P I was talking from a "technical" point of view: if you're considering the best way a rouge can deal direct damage in combat, is by use of her unique ability which differs from any other class: sneak attacks. You can be a skill-monkey rogue, a subtle bastard, who can carry out everything, even disarmed, and it's quite interesting from the RP side. You can take just a few levels for other purposes... But ,in posts above, we were considering a full-rogue HO , a rogue who can't max out skill ranks, nor use SA as easily as others do. are they still playable? sure does it mean that HO are good at being rogues? no, any race as at least a "special niche" ,with any class, where its members show to be good. did we say that it was impossible? no As I said before, HO aren't limited to a few role, and related classes, ie underpowered, because it is impossible to build any HO character with any class, but because the way I can do it, and the results I get, are not as good as with any other race, considering both power and roleplaying issues
Oakspar77777 02-28-07, 05:21 PM	Upon double checking for the chart, I found it not in SS as I originally thought, but on page 173 of the DMG. Again, the Wood Elf is not a PHB race, so the only one fair to compair to the HO is the High Elf. Also, Wood Elves are A DIFFERENT RACE from High Elves. You might as well compare halflings and gnolls. Different races. Self sustaining races. Generally heterogenous races. I feel I'm still repeating myself, as the issue here isn't "Who is the uberest at the most classes?" it is "Are HO not viable as characters, or as only a few types of characters?" The answer to that is clearly no. HO excel and are best or near best with several classes. Therefore, they are not underpowered.
gullas 02-28-07, 05:27 PM	just remove the -2 in int on Half-orcs or the -2 in Cha , either way works ok:bravo:
AMGriffin 02-28-07, 07:55 PM	I feel I'm still repeating myself, as the issue here isn't "Who is the uberest at the most classes?" it is "Are HO not viable as characters, or as only a few types of characters?" The answer to that is clearly no. HO excel and are best or near best with several classes. Therefore, they are not underpowered. Well I'll only talk about this part. You seem to me like some kinda Rulebook gestapo. You're missing the major point of this all, which is that half-orcs are only good at HITTING THINGS. They are sub-par or average in everything else. Character class is pretty ambiguous and most of the character classes can be built in a variety of ways, the half-orc just happens to only be even viable in the "ugh me smash" role. Again, the Wood Elf is not a PHB race, so the only one fair to compair to the HO is the High Elf. That makes about as much as sense growing corn on the moon. I mean really, does ANYONE just use the PHB races anymore? Saying "well they weren't intended to be played" is even more crazy. Look at orcs for example, there is a section that says "ORCS AS CHARACTERS." Well gee, if they weren't intended to be used you think they wouldn't have put that section in... and even if half-orcs are still "balanced" their balance is immediately thrown into disarray when you consider humans or orcs are better at them in EVERY CLASS (say for a few very specific roles). Hell, the high elf is way different then the half-orc as it is, if you're going to compare a half-orc to anything, compare it to the dwarf. PS: Dwarves are very much not pidgeon-holed.
scienceman47 03-01-07, 01:51 AM	Personally I would replace -2int and cha with -2wis and cha. Seems like a better combination result from human learning capability. Course, then you lose out on cleric and druid. You really cannot win like this. :weep:
EvilIdiot 03-01-07, 03:29 AM	Again, the Wood Elf is not a PHB race, so the only one fair to compair to the HO is the High Elf. Also, Wood Elves are A DIFFERENT RACE from High Elves. You might as well compare halflings and gnolls. Different races. Self sustaining races. Generally heterogenous races. no, they're subraces, specifically defined in DMG Uh, so a wood elf and a gnoll are the same for a high elf?and for Corellon as well? I feel I'm still repeating myself, as the issue here isn't "Who is the uberest at the most classes?" it is "Are HO not viable as characters, or as only a few types of characters?" The answer to that is clearly no. HO excel and are best or near best with several classes. Therefore, they are not underpowered. I'm not saying that WE is a uber race, I'm saying that if it sounds blasphemous to remove 1 mental penalty to HO, how can we explain wood elves? How can we accept that HO and WE, together with other hundreds of races which do not strictly follow DMG/SS rules, coexist? HO viable with several classes? Did you ever try to play a HO wizard? a skill-monkey HO? maybe a rogue? a HO bard? And I 'm sure I'm repeating myself: we're not saying that's impossible. It just sucks , if compared to other races... Did you understand the way I manage stats to create characters? With HO, you have always a penalty which cannot be balanced. Perhaps it's not important, but why does the HO have to suffer from an additional penalty?
Ogrebear 03-01-07, 08:01 AM	Is there any way to give Half Orcs 0 stat modifiers and give them +/- to skills instead to represent their racial abilities? (this could be done for all races I think). What I mean is give them say: +3 to str based skills, -1 to Dex skills, -2 to int skills or something similar. This could obviously be customised by campaign so on some worlds the Orcs are educated and have no - (or less -) to int skills. it would allow players to customise much more. This would also get round the whole 'which stat to penalise' problem.
AMGriffin 03-01-07, 09:12 AM	I've also played around with giving half-orcs a dexterity penalty instead of Intelligence or Charisma penalties. That would open them for a TON of bonuses. Like oh...here's a quick write up of a +2 STR, -2 DEX half-orc. Half-orcs • +2 Strength, -2 Dexterity. Half-orcs are strong, but their muscular build encumbers them. • Medium size • 30 feet base land speed • Darkvision out to 30 feet. • +2 racial bonus on saves against fear. Half-orcs are mentally resiliant, a testament of the human spirit and orcish ferocity. • +1 racial bonus on saves against disease. Half-orcs are resistant to illness. • +2 racial bonus on intimidate checks. Half-orcs carry with them a forbiding persona that allows them to be frightening when they want to be. • -1 penalty on diplomacy, gather information, and bluff checks. Half-orcs are typically distrusted, wherever they go. • 4 extra skill points at first level and one extra skillpoint per level. Half-orcs are skilled and capable like humans. • Automatic languages: Common, Orc Bonus languages: Any. • Favored Class: Any.