In the "Monsters too powerful for their CR" thread, a discussion developed about how overpowered orcs were with their:
This makes Orc potentially too powerful for their CR⅓ (as a Lvl 1 Warror).
This lead to a discussion of how to bring them back into range, while keeping their monster role as "destructive brute."
For the first issue, two alternate attribute options are on the table.
the orc would be more balanced if it's racial modifiers were +2 strength +2 constitution -2 charisma
... or ...
"+2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int" would be more thematic.
Both appear to try to reduce the excessive strength bonus. But which is better.
the reason for the charisma penalty instead of the intelligence penalty is for some of the following reasons
orcs are more feral, meaning worse people skills
tribal hunters, though not formally educated, have a semblance of tribal education that is a different kind of smart from academic
even with a charisma penalty, they can take a feat to use strength for intimidationWitches, the most common and most fitting orcish casters, are int based, the other shamans, known as wizards, probably make their spellbooks out of leather and use their own orcish script. neither of these rely on people skills, but can utilize predatory cunning
druids barbarians, and rangers, though not int based, have a more feral education that uses a variety of wilderness based skills that neccessitate cunning more than people skills.
plus, orcs are more smashy less talky.
vs.
"+2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int" would be more thematic for the Pathfinder Orc - they care little for education or even rational thought. It would also explain why their arcane casters (Witchdoctors) are sorcerers rather then witches/wizards.Belkzen orcs are getting into trade, negotiation, not always resorting to violence first. Somewhat going a viking route actually.
So what does the community at large think?
In both cases, we would want to move them to regular Battle Axes and Scimitars (to reduce the base weapon damage).
TBQH I think it would be balanced if they took OFF one of the mental stat penalties (Likely Wis). +4 Str is nice, yes, but -2 to Int, Wis, AND Cha is a pretty hefty blow unless you plan on not being able to do much of anything at all out of combat.
Though it does lead to some hilarious stat allocations like my 5 Cha (20 Str/12 Dex/16 Con/8 Int/12 Wis) Orc Barbarian.
But I don't think it's OP as-is.
But I don't think it's OP as-is.
This is plausible.
The Greataxe/Falchion could be the root of the problem. Moving them to a sword & board with one of the two weapons suggested (Battle Axe/Scimitar) might be enough.
Even the greataxe/falchion thing evens out in a few levels. Orc ferocity seems like something invented by someone who hates low level PCs, though. The only thing worse than a questionable damage output is a questionable damage output that can be aggravated by the orc not falling down.
Why is the Greataxe/Falchion the root of the problem? Most classes that benefit from the Str boost already have those weapon proficiencies already (they're martial weapons).
The only ones I could really think of off the top of my head that benefit at all are the divine caster builds centered around combat, and even in that case they can just take a god that has one of the two weapons as a Favored Weapon anyway.
I would think the proficiencies would be LESS of an issue than the stats, really.
Edit: Reading comprehension fail. For some reason I thought this was about Orcs being OP as a PC race, not as an enemy.
So you're suggesting that the lower level Orcs in the bestiary should have weapons less liable to oneshot PCs at level 1 and 2 on a solid hit? Yeah I can see that I guess.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're fine as is. Orcs are supposed to be frighting. Reducing them in any way means the fluff is just fluff without any mechanics to back it up.
The reason why entire kingdoms are frightened of the orcish hordes is because even the most basic orc grunt can one-shot a second level character, and takes 1 or 2 extra hits to fully put down.
If you really think orcs are too powerful for CR 1/3, just bump them up to CR 1/2. Don't make them weaker.
Even the greataxe/falchion thing evens out in a few levels.
I quite agree! The point is that at their CR and the levels where that CR is likely to be encountered is when the problem occurs.
Orc ferocity seems like something invented by someone who hates low level PCs, though.
This is also true.
The only thing worse than a questionable damage output is a questionable damage output that can be aggravated by the orc not falling down.
I think our actual goal might be to balance the "destructive brute" concept better.
If you really think orcs are too powerful for CR 1/3, just bump them up to CR 1/2. Don't make them weaker.
Would this help the low level balance issue?
Yeah, I agree with Doomed. I like Orcs as both PCs (it's my favorite race currently, along with Hobgoblins. They just have such a neat flavor as martial characters) and enemies (they're fearsome, brutal, and dangerous when played well by the DM), so just making their threat level clearer would fix things really.
I mean, come ON. They're the same CR as the wimpy little goblins?
I mean, come ON. They're the same CR as the wimpy little goblins?
Which is heart of my problem. :)
They have kind of a problem, in that they can as dangerous as a hobgoblin, especially if they crit, but their other statistics are in keeping with their low CR. They're fairly balanced against the idea that they should be mowed down from a distance, but that is not always a tactical choice.
Flavorwise, I prefer my orcs with shields, spears, and crude bows. Really, though, the longsword is pretty sensible; but visually, Paizo has given hobgoblins the "normal" martial weapons and orcs are relegated to the brute smasher role.
Flavorwise, I prefer my orcs with shields, spears, and crude bows. Really, though, the longsword is pretty sensible; but visually, Paizo has given hobgoblins the "normal" martial weapons and orcs are relegated to the brute smasher role.
The problem was worse in 1st edition, where they (Hobgoblins and Orcs) truly were interchangeable.
They have kind of a problem, in that they can as dangerous as a hobgoblin, especially if they crit, but their other statistics are in keeping with their low CR. They're fairly balanced against the idea that they should be mowed down from a distance, but that is not always a tactical choice.
The problem here is that their "Ferocity" ability often means that "mowing them down from a distance" doesn't work as well as it should.
Well, I looked over the ARG notes, and I don't see any ability score arrangement I would purposefully give to D&D style orcs. I'm pretty sure that combing +Con with orc ferocity just makes ferocity worse. The most natural arrangement, in my mind, would be +2 Str, -2 Wis, -2 Cha. The -2 Int thing seems mostly just a nod to AD&D, which indicated that only orc leaders were capable of operating machinery independently. Modern orcs are generally presented as having specialists (witch doctors, blacksmiths, priests and zealots, slavers), tool crafters, and reasonably skilled (if somewhat lacking in breadth). But "the most natural arrangement" as I have defined it is not an ARG option, probably because all the arrays were designed to offer some kind of natural strength. The orc's niche, though, has always been having a high Strength, balanced by not really having other advantages. In 3.0, orcs were given a +4 Strength, which was like Christmas for them, and helped strengthen their niche. But then 3.5 came along and gave them the "warrior array." ... Honestly, Pathfinder hasn't helped in that regard, since human Warrior 1 characters also now get a +2 Strength. So now low level melee damage is pretty inflated in the orc department.
The problem is that +2 Str, -2 Wis/Cha pretty much makes them flat out worse than any other race as far as stats go. Especially if the Blood of Angels book is open to the players and you can snag Angelkin Aasimar for +2 Str/Cha and no minus stats or a Suli with +2 Str/Cha and -2 Int.
Unless you propose a different stat allocation for NPC/Grunt Orcs, which I wouldn't be against. A "Common Orc" for those purposes and an "Orc Paragon" or something for PCs.
That's only a problem if you think orcs should be a balanced PC option. Traditionally, you would play one of the "orctouched" rather than a full-blooded orc. AD&D treated orcs as strictly subhuman, and losers even by the standards of savage humanoids.
That's only a problem if you think orcs should be a balanced PC option. Traditionally, you would play one of the "orctouched" rather than a full-blooded orc. AD&D treated orcs as strictly subhuman, and losers even by the standards of savage humanoids.
For Orc, especially as NPCs, I think more to the point then might be ...
This weighs in at 6 RP.
This might fit the "sub-human savage brute" archetype better - and keeps the "Half-Orc" as the more viable PC option (... and Half-Orc could also fit into the role of "Orc Paragon" - which explains why Orc Tribes would be intentionally breading Half-Orcs.)
That's only a problem if you think orcs should be a balanced PC option.
I very much do.
That's only a problem if you think orcs should be a balanced PC option. Traditionally, you would play one of the "orctouched" rather than a full-blooded orc. AD&D treated orcs as strictly subhuman, and losers even by the standards of savage humanoids.
Tradition has no place here. We're playing Pathfinder, not AD&D.
That's only a problem if you think orcs should be a balanced PC option. Traditionally, you would play one of the "orctouched" rather than a full-blooded orc. AD&D treated orcs as strictly subhuman, and losers even by the standards of savage humanoids.Tradition has no place here. We're playing Pathfinder, not AD&D.
But you avoid the question: Is the current Pathfinder Orc too powerful at low levels?
+2 STR, +2 WIS, -2 INT w/o light sensitivity will always be my orc of choice.
The problem here is that the lack of light sensitivity is one of the main attractions of the Half-Orc.
My build above deliberately tries to keep Orc and Half-Orcs distinct (and to keep the Half-Orc as the better PC choice).
+2 STR, +2 WIS, -2 INT w/o light sensitivity will always be my orc of choice.The problem here is that the lack of light sensitivity is one of the main attractions of the Half-Orc.
My build above deliberately tries to keep Orc and Half-Orcs distinct (and to keep the Half-Orc as the better PC choice.)
Pfft.
There's already an alternate trait for it for a measly -2 to ranged attacks.
And why are you trying to PROMOTE racial disparity? The more balanced the races are with each other the more variety you'll see.
And why are you trying to PROMOTE racial disparity? The more balanced the races are with each other the more variety you'll see.
Yes. I am trying to PROMOTE racial disparity.
The seven races of the Pathfinder Core Rules should be the best choice for a Player Character.
Lord Fyre, you should make a separate stat block for Golarion Orcs.
The Core Rulebook does not need to be in a forced marriage with the setting of Golarion.
If it was, Clerics would never have the option of being godless, and would always have to have a deity.
And I disagree with the Core races being the best. They are the most boring options in the game. Advanced Race Guide for the win!
The seven races of the Pathfinder Core Rules should be the best choice for a Player Character.
Why?
Lord Fyre, you should make a separate stat block for Golarion Orcs.
The Core Rulebook does not need to be in a forced marriage with the setting of Golarion.
I think you need to re-read the racial descriptions of Gnomes and Elves, and virtually all the Bestiary again.
Like it or not, the Pathfinder RPG is already in a "forced marriage with the setting of Golarion."
Lord Fyre, you should make a separate stat block for Golarion Orcs.
The Core Rulebook does not need to be in a forced marriage with the setting of Golarion.
I think you need to re-read the racial descriptions of Gnomes and Elves, and virtually all the Bestiary again.
Like it or not, the Pathfinder RPG is already in a "forced marriage with the setting of Golarion."
Then why does the Core Rulebook allow godless Clerics?
The seven races of the Pathfinder Core Rules should be the best choice for a Player Character.Why?
Because the Core Rule book races are what the game intends for the PCs to use. Everything else is just options.
Dark Elves, Kobolds, Giants, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Orcs, etc. are - and have always been - intended to be the adversaries for the Player Character Heroes.
Then why does the Core Rulebook allow godless Clerics?Lord Fyre, you should make a separate stat block for Golarion Orcs.
The Core Rulebook does not need to be in a forced marriage with the setting of Golarion.
I think you need to re-read the racial descriptions of Gnomes and Elves, and virtually all the Bestiary again.
Like it or not, the Pathfinder RPG is already in a "forced marriage with the setting of Golarion."
As a weak nod to not being Golarion specific.
Else (like Dwarves), Elves, Gnomes, & Halflings sould have more traditional descriptions (such as wierd elven eyes, and/or gnomish fey connction & bleaching). The monsters in the Bestiaries should have less Golarion specific flavor in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the Core Rule book races are what the game intends for the PCs to use. Everything else is just options.
The Core races are also just options. What's your point?
Dark Elves, Kobolds, Giants, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Orcs, etc. are - and have always been - intended to be the adversaries for the Player Character Heroes.
And yet one of the most prominent figures in gaming related literature is on of those "adversaries only" races.
And that still doesn't explain A.) How this matters from a game design/balance perspective and B.) How an enemy is supposed to be a credible threat if they're always literally inferior to the PC races.
Dark Elves, Kobolds, Giants, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Orcs, etc. are - and have always been - intended to be the adversaries for the Player Character Heroes.And yet one of the most prominent figures in gaming related literature is on of those "adversaries only" races.
And Drizzt Do'urden has since made the Dark Elves useless for their original function - without making them PC balanced. The entire Second Darkness adventure path was intended to restore Dark Elves to their role as horrific "bad guys, but it is still debatable how well it succeeded."
How an enemy is supposed to be a credible threat if they're always literally inferior to the PC races.
That is the point. They are not.
They are meant to be used as low level opponents for the PC heroes. Their "threat" would normally come from superior numbers.
The Core races are also just options. What's your point?
Because the Core Rule book races are what the game intends for the PCs to use. Everything else is just options.
No, they're Core. They are the center of the game's implied world setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Drizzt Do'urden has since made the Dark Elves useless for their original function - without making them PC balanced.
Things evolve.
Simply because something had an original function does not mean that function needs to stay the same forever.
That is the point. They are not.
They are meant to be used as low level opponents for the PC heroes. Their "threat" would normally come from superior numbers.
Using races as nothing but disposable cannon fodder is a waste of their potential. A powerful Orc warlord should be able to go toe to toe with a PC, as should a Drow Sorcerer, a Hobgoblin slave master, and so forth.
This is an argument which no one can win, simply because there's no "wrong" way to play the game, so long as everyone's having fun. Lord Frye is free to play his game where monsterous races are not PC suitible, and Rynjin is free to play his game where the traditionally monsterous races are not necessarily "Always Chaotic Evil"
This is, I believe, one of the reasons the ARG exists. The Bestiary stats, by and large, don't work for PCs. The ARG can be made to houserule up PC friendly alternatives. So long as there are options for both playstyles, it shouldn't need to be an issue.
Using races as nothing but disposable cannon fodder is a waste of their potential. A powerful Orc warlord should be able to go toe to toe with a PC, as should a Drow Sorcerer, a Hobgoblin slave master, and so forth.That is the point. They are not.
They are meant to be used as low level opponents for the PC heroes. Their "threat" would normally come from superior numbers.
Though I actually agree with your position in general, moreso than Lord Fyre's, I have to disagree with your assertion that they're simply disposable cannon fodder. If you don't add class levels to them, sure, but a Hobgoblin slave master could be built with a few class levels of fighter or ranger, and suddenly they can go toe to toe with a PC. Though I agree they might need to be altered for use as PC races, just because they're not at an equal power-level race wise, compared to core races, doesn't mean they can't be credible threats. Same reason Core race NPCs can still be credible threats, even though their stats are inferior to most point-buys.
|
I like orcs as mentally degenerate compared to humans, but physically stronger; as a warrior race, basically built to be easily led by evil overlords. Cannon fodder, but very nutritious cannon fodder.
That said, I think the bestiary stats are a bit lopsided and not entirely ideal for low-level parties. Their CR is low for their stats, so either the stats should change or the CR should increase to fit their real power.
Orcs are going to use heavy weapons; that makes sense. Big axes or swords or clubs; simple stuff. However, that's got high potential to kill starting-level PCs with one or two hits, and their high to hit practically ensures that it'll hit.
I think +2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int and -2 (Wis OR Cha), and no Ferocity, would make for a better statline. Orcs drop a little sooner due to damage, so you can actually take them out. And their to-hit is a little less, damage a little lower, so they're not quite so ridiculously deadly.
I rather like the skewed stats (favoring physical); it gives half-orcs a function in orc society as "weaker but smarter" aides to the chieftain.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why does the Core Rulebook allow godless Clerics?Lord Fyre, you should make a separate stat block for Golarion Orcs.
The Core Rulebook does not need to be in a forced marriage with the setting of Golarion.
I think you need to re-read the racial descriptions of Gnomes and Elves, and virtually all the Bestiary again.
Like it or not, the Pathfinder RPG is already in a "forced marriage with the setting of Golarion."
To be fair I believe it has been mentioned that with hindsight they would not have put the goddless cleric part in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Godless Clerics are a great idea. With a few well-placed sentences it opens up alternatives for classic gods. Like calling on your family's ancestor spirits, or channeling "imperial magic", or any number of other things. It's good that the core book isn't chained to only using gods.
In the "Monsters too powerful for their CR" thread, a discussion developed about how overpowered orcs were with their:
+4 Strength, -2 Intelligence, -2 Wisdom, -2 charisma attribute bonuses
preference for Large Weapons.
This makes Orc potentially too powerful for their CR⅓ (as a Lvl 1 Warror).This lead to a discussion of how to bring them back into range, while keeping their monster role as "destructive brute."
The only thing that makes an orc stand out over their peers is Ferocity (which is mechanically just Diehard). My players frequently encounter orcs. The most unholy abomination they have encountered thus far is the "savage orcs" in my campaign (1HD orc warriors with clubs, slings, dumped mental statistics but pumped physical statistics, CR 1/4 each, oh my).
Orcs are amazingly overpowered if you fight on their terms. Contrasted with goblinoids who all have Stealth capabilities, kobolds (who get a CR reduction, Stealth, AC boosts, and a superior homefield advantage due to size), and other humanoids (who tend to have better racial features anyway) who are more varied or have ways of forcing you to fight on their terms.
But the funny thing is that without Ferocity they're pretty terrible. Orcs are shock troopers. A standard CR 1/3 orc has 6 Hp. Just 6. That's enough that you can reduce them to staggered by just rolling well on a d6 or better. Because they're wielding a 2 hander, they are absent a shield, and to actually make their melee brutishness frightening they need their speed and thus need that light armor.
Now orc ferocity means that they keep fighting until -12 Hp, albeit while staggered (only 1 standard or move action per turn) and bleeding out (-1 hp / turn). What does this mean though?
The obvious bit is that engaging in melee with orcs is dumb as dirt. They are like fighting a body builder hopped up on crack and flinging around a giant sword. Do you really want to melee with that?
Of course their Perception's pretty meh, their initiative is pretty meh, and their ranged opportunities tend to be pretty meh (they're mostly stuck with thrown weapons if they want to capitalize on their strength at low levels when a composite bow is too expensive for them). You take these guys apart with ranged weapons and/or spells.
Or deal 1 point of nonlethal damage to them. That works too.
Ashiel hits the nail on the head. Orcs have great strengths, but they also have great weaknesses. If you fight any other race sub-optimally, it's your own damn fault. Why should Orcs be any different? These glaring weaknesses are easily exploited and can make short work of Orcs. They don't need to be adjusted. And if you're still not happy, race the CR. Don't nerf their abilities.
Ashiel hits the nail on the head. Orcs have great strengths, but they also have great weaknesses. If you fight any other race sub-optimally, it's your own damn fault. Why should Orcs be any different? These glaring weaknesses are easily exploited and can make short work of Orcs. They don't need to be adjusted. And if you're still not happy, race the CR. Don't nerf their abilities.
Well I mean a huge part of this game is learning how to deal with things, not just testing your numbers versus theirs and expecting PCs to always be better.
I mean it's not even like orcs are overly gimmicky. They're pretty simple. Try to stay away from them and hit them from a distance. Once they're staggered there's not really anything they can do to hold the battle after that unless they drastically outnumber you (once staggered you can literally run circles around them because the best they can manage is a 30 ft. movement, no running, no double moving, etc).
If you play only to your opponent's strengths then you shouldn't be surprised when you fail. If you insist on meleeing with an ogre, for example (another powerful brute enemy) then you should be prepared for getting walloped (for the record a 14 Con and 3rd level means you're still probably gonna die in 2 hits from an ogre and ogres are scarier for their level 'cause they lack the weaknesses of orcs and are actually faster than you).
In the same regard kobolds are hax if you're trying to shoot them. Their AC can be enormously high, they're small enough to make good use of cover, their strength penalties are meaningless with a light crossbow...but they're terrible in melee.
As for orcs, when all else fails, punish their -1 Will save with colorspray, charm person, or sleep.
Weaknesses, however, do not necessarily make up for a creature, object, or ability's strength. Most incorporeal undead are completely ineffectual if faced in sunlight. This does not, however, justify lowering the CR. With respect to orcs, in a confined space for example, it may not be reasonably possible to keep out of melee distance. Or if they appear in front of a ranged 'glass cannon' type of enemy.
My personal thoughts on balance with respect to orcs is that it's purely the ferocity ability which breaks them. Sure, their attack bonus and average damage is higher than other CR 1/3, but not so much as to be game breaking. It's really the fact that they can't be downed in one or two hits that makes them a disproportionate threat.
I think exchanging the ferocity ability for the half-orc's 'orc ferocity' would be a fine fix. They would STILL get another attack in after having been effectively cut down, but they would not have quite as disproportionately greater effective HPs in low-level combats. One could even have the ability scale (to full on ferocity or Die Hard status) after a certain number of hit die without appreciably affecting balance IMO. Die Hard becomes increasingly negligible as average damage and hit points go up.
I disagree with your point. While the undead are useless in sunlight, that's entirely environmental. They aren't going to mosey up to you in broad daylight and attempt to fight you. It's a weakness that is not going to be largely relevant.
Orcs, on the other hand, require simple battle tactics to exploit those weakness. If there are a bunch of Orcs in close quarters, the simple answer is to draw them out of close quarters which is easily manageable. I still say that they don't need any adjustments. They only require that the players should fight intelligently.
Weaknesses, however, do not necessarily make up for a creature, object, or ability's strength. Most incorporeal undead are completely ineffectual if faced in sunlight. This does not, however, justify lowering the CR. With respect to orcs, in a confined space for example, it may not be reasonably possible to keep out of melee distance. Or if they appear in front of a ranged 'glass cannon' type of enemy.
My personal thoughts on balance with respect to orcs is that it's purely the ferocity ability which breaks them. Sure, their attack bonus and average damage is higher than other CR 1/3, but not so much as to be game breaking. It's really the fact that they can't be downed in one or two hits that makes them a disproportionate threat.
I think exchanging the ferocity ability for the half-orc's 'orc ferocity' would be a fine fix. They would STILL get another attack in after having been effectively cut down, but they would not have quite as disproportionately greater effective HPs in low-level combats. One could even have the ability scale (to full on ferocity or Die Hard status) after a certain number of hit die without appreciably affecting balance IMO. Die Hard becomes increasingly negligible as average damage and hit points go up.
I disagree with your point. While the undead are useless in sunlight, that's entirely environmental. They aren't going to mosey up to you in broad daylight and attempt to fight you. It's a weakness that is not going to be largely relevant.
Orcs, on the other hand, require simple battle tactics to exploit those weakness. If there are a bunch of Orcs in close quarters, the simple answer is to draw them out of close quarters which is easily manageable. I still say that they don't need any adjustments. They only require that the players should fight intelligently.
This is pretty much what my players did the last time they encountered a ton of orcs. Orcs are found "in the wild" in hills, mountains, and underground. All places that you should be able to use terrain to your distinct advantage. During one of my games my players snuck into an orc-controlled keep through a cellar entrance they found out about. They then had to fight their way from the basement to the orc leader. They had to plow through tons of orcs, and some of the orcs were even more dangerous than normal (some included orcs in splint mail, or CR 1/4 orcs who were essentially naked but came in large groups).
They plowed through them by blocking them off or surrounding them, dropping colorspray or similar spells, and just kept going. They had to hole up in a room with a steel door at one point though because they took some heavy damage and they were too broke to have had a wand of cure light wounds at the time, but they went through several difficult encounters before needing to take a real breather.
Weaknesses, however, do not necessarily make up for a creature, object, or ability's strength. Most incorporeal undead are completely ineffectual if faced in sunlight. This does not, however, justify lowering the CR. With respect to orcs, in a confined space for example, it may not be reasonably possible to keep out of melee distance. Or if they appear in front of a ranged 'glass cannon' type of enemy.
My personal thoughts on balance with respect to orcs is that it's purely the ferocity ability which breaks them. Sure, their attack bonus and average damage is higher than other CR 1/3, but not so much as to be game breaking. It's really the fact that they can't be downed in one or two hits that makes them a disproportionate threat.
I think exchanging the ferocity ability for the half-orc's 'orc ferocity' would be a fine fix. They would STILL get another attack in after having been effectively cut down, but they would not have quite as disproportionately greater effective HPs in low-level combats. One could even have the ability scale (to full on ferocity or Die Hard status) after a certain number of hit die without appreciably affecting balance IMO. Die Hard becomes increasingly negligible as average damage and hit points go up.
I disagree with your point. While the undead are useless in sunlight, that's entirely environmental. They aren't going to mosey up to you in broad daylight and attempt to fight you. It's a weakness that is not going to be largely relevant.
Orcs, on the other hand, require simple battle tactics to exploit those weakness. If there are a bunch of Orcs in close quarters, the simple answer is to draw them out of close quarters which is easily manageable. I still say that they don't need any adjustments. They only require that the players should fight intelligently.
Not to mention that giving the enemy favorable terrain usually merits a CR adjustment to the encounter.
Not to mention that giving the enemy favorable terrain usually merits a CR adjustment to the encounter.
Actually, I believe CR is made with the assumption that the creature will be found on its natural habitat.
e.g.: The Sea Serpent has its CR based on the fact that it'll be faced in the ocean or another large body of water where it can live.